APPLICATION COVER SHEET LEA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS 6795 District NCES Identification Code:
APPLICATION COVER SHEET LEA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS District Name: Waterloo Schools District State Code: 6795 District NCES Identification Code: NCES 1930480 School(s) Served: Cunningham School For Excellence District’s Mailing Address: 1516 Washington St Waterloo, Iowa 50702 NCES Identification Code: NCES 01719 Intervention Model: Transformation Allocation Requested: $1,600,000 LEA Contact for the School Improvement Grant Name: Jane Lindaman Position and Office: Associate Superintendent, Waterloo Schools, Education Service Center Contact’s Mailing Address: 1516 Washington St, Waterloo, IA 50702 Telephone: 319.433.1800 Fax: 319.433.1889 Email address: [email protected] LEA Superintendent (Printed Name): Telephone: Dr. Gary Norris 319.433.1800 Signature of the LEA Superintendent: Date: May 11, 2014 LEA School Board President (Printed Name): Telephone: Mike Young 319.230.3563 Signature of the LEA School Board President Date: May 11, 2014 The LEA, through its authorized representative, agrees to comply with all requirements applicable to the School Improvement Grants program, including the assurances contained herein and the conditions that apply to any waivers that the State receives through this application. YES For Iowa Department of Education use only Date Received: 1 PERSISTENTLY LOWEST ACHIEVING SCHOOL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Pursuant to Iowa Code section 256.9, as amended by 2010 Iowa Acts (SF 2033), this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the Waterloo Community School District (name of school district) and the Waterloo Education Association (name employee organization representing school district teacher). The purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework of collaboration as well as articulate specific roles and responsibilities in support of implementing one of the intervention models for the persistently lowest achieving school for Cunningham School for Excellence (name of school). The terms of this MOU were reached (circle one) mutually as a result of negotiation OR as a result of mediation. (Optional language) The terms of this MOU take effect when Waterloo Community School District is awarded a School Improvement Grant. I. AGREED TO INTERVENTION MODEL ___A. Turnaround model. Replace the principal and rehire no more than 50 percent of the staff, and grant the principal sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student outcomes. ___B. Restart model. Convert a school or close and reopen it under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process. ___C. School closure. Close a school and enroll the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. X D. Transformation model. Implement each of the following strategies: (1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and school leader effectiveness; (2) institute comprehensive instructional reforms; (3) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools; and (4) provide operational flexibility and sustained support. II. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. The school district and the employee organization representing school district teachers will collaborate in good faith to ensure alignment and coordination of all planning and implementation activities in order to effectively and efficiently achieve the implementation of the selected intervention model. 2. The school district and the employee organization representing school district teachers will each appoint a key contact person for this school improvement effort. 3. The school district contact and employee organization contact will maintain frequent communication to facilitate cooperation and coordination under this MOU. 4. The school district contact and employee organization contact will work together to assure that implementation of the agreed upon intervention model is occurring. 5. The school district and employee organization will negotiate in good faith to continue to achieve the overall goals actions of the school district’s approved School Improvement Grant application. III. ASSURANCES The signees hereby certify and represent that they have all requisite power and authority to execute this MOU and will collaborate in good faith to support and advance the implementation of the selected intervention model. 2 IV. MODIFICATIONS This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended only by written agreement signed by each of the parties involved and in consultation with the Iowa Department of Education. V. DURATION AND TERMINATION This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in effect beginning July 1, 2014 (list start date) and ending upon the expiration of the grant period. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights, remedies and procedures afforded school or school district employees under Federal, State, or local laws or under the terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between such employees and their employers. By way of the signatures below, the school district and the employee organization representing school district teachers agree to confer in good faith over matters within the scope of the MOU and agree further that those portions of the MOU subject to collective bargaining shall be implemented only upon the agreement of the school district and the employee organization representing school district teachers. VI. The school district and teachers’ association agree that the following modifications to the collective bargaining agreement will be made: Article IV Supplemental Pay Article XII Evaluation Article X Employee hours Article XIV Voluntary Transfers Article X Employee Contract Days Article XV Involuntary Transfers [Dr. Gary Norris] [Mike Young] [Kristen Byers] ______________________________________________ Authorized Department of Education Official (required) _________________ Date 3 FY2013 Iowa LEA School Improvement Grant Checklist Instructions: Complete a checklist for each applicant school. Application Cover Sheet Section A: Schools to be served Section B: Descriptive Information 1. Needs Assessment and Analysis 2. Resource Alignment Resource Alignment Assurance 3. Actions a. Capacity b. Design and implement interventions required of model chosen c. External providers d. Modification of practices and policies e. Sustainability of the reforms 4. Timelines for pre-implementation and implementation 5. Monitoring a. Establishing annual goals for both reading and math b. Measuring of progress, including use of leading indicators c. Monitoring Assurance 6. Stakeholder consultation Section C: Budget Assurances Waivers Incomplete or late applications will not be considered 4 A. SCHOOLS TO BE SERVED: An LEA must include the following information with respect to the schools it will serve with a School Improvement Grant. An LEA must identify each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school, or each priority school, as applicable, the LEA commits to serve and identify the model that the LEA will use in each Tier I and Tier II school, or in each priority school, as applicable. SCHOOLS ELIGIBLE FOR FY 2013 SIG FUNDS INTERVENTION (Tier I and II only) SCHOOL NAME Cunningham SFE NCES ID # NCES 01719 TIER I TIER II TIER III TurnAround Restart X Closure Transformation X Note: An LEA that has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the transformation model in more than 50 percent of those schools. B. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: An LEA must include the following information in its application for a School Improvement Grant. (1) Needs Analysis For each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school, or each priority school, that the LEA commits to serve, the LEA must demonstrate that the LEA has analyzed the needs of each school, such as instructional programs, school leadership and school infrastructure, and selected interventions for each school aligned to the needs each school has identified. The LEA must consult with relevant stakeholders in completing the needs assessment process by completing the following (adding additional rows as needed): Name Craig Saddler Title Building Principal Stakeholder Group Administration Neldrekka Whitaker Ryan Christopher Comfort AkwajiAnderson Beverly Rockett Maneca Seenster Robert Luloff Tamothy Tigue Charles Cryer Sarah Burmeister Alexander Espinoza Linda Garlinghouse Michelle Van Winkle Brad Cross Lead Teacher Literacy Coach Math Coach Building Leadership Building Leadership Building Leadership Date of Meeting--2014 April 1, 3, 10, 17, May 2, 5 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Retired Administrator Kindergarten Teacher PE Teacher Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Community Teacher Teacher April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 May 6 May 6 May 6 May 6 May 6 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 5 Kathy Vogel Kimberly Archie Mary Peterson Megan Ehlen Jessica Sidler Vicki Oleson Brian Townsend Davette Myles Jane Lindaman 3rd Grade Teacher Special Ed Teacher Title One Teacher 5th Grade Teacher PK Teacher University Professor University Professor Special Needs Para Associate Supt Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Expert Consultant Expert Consultant Staff District Administration April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 The LEA will provide a narrative describing the needs assessment process that was used to collect, analyze, and report data (please limit narrative to a maximum one page, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Needs Assessment Process The Waterloo Community District utilized multiple processes to gather, organize, analyze and report the data included in the Needs Analysis. The Assistant Superintendent and building principal began the quest for information by conducting face-to-face interviews with representative stakeholders of the Cunningham community. Parents, support staff, classroom teachers, interventionists, and content coaches provided input in all of the areas of the Needs Assessment. The group met for a total of 7 hours on multiple occasions. The data review also included analysis of the following pieces of evidence: SINA 30 day and Extended Meeting Notes, interviews from administrative leadership, teachers, support staff, and parents, surveys from teacher and support staff, reviews of personal and building calendars, observation and walkthrough data, resources and materials, and agendas of meetings. While the organization of the data challenged the team, it provided the opportunity to examine the evidence very carefully. A true culture of inquiry emerged throughout the process, ultimately leading to some immediate changes in practice and communication. While the data revealed some gaps and inconsistencies, it also solidified the need for evidence. “How do you know that?” was a common question. The study of implementation and feedback data caused the administrative team to view the data 6 through multiple lenses. Questions, as well as answers, began to emerge. “How could we clarify expectations of professional development?” “Are we truly following the Iowa Professional Development Model?” There were also moments of celebration. The needs analysis provided time to reflect not only on how far we need to go as a building and district but also how far we have come. The LEA will provide a narrative describing the demographics and brief history of the identified building (please limit narrative to a maximum two pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Demographics and History Cunningham School for Excellence was the first elementary to be rebuilt in Waterloo with local option sales tax (1 cent) money. It opened 2002, and was built to replace Grant Elementary and half of the Roosevelt Elementary attendance area. Cunningham has maintained a fairly steady enrollment since opening, with 425 students currently enrolled (33 in PK and 392 students in Grades K-5). Cunningham serves a high poverty, high minority population, with 91% of students being minority and 89% of student eligible for free and reduced lunch. They are a school-wide Title 1 building. Other demographics about the student population include: • 15% IEPs (individual education plan) • 1.3% gifted and talented programming • 3.0% English Language Learners (ELL) • 14.0% mobility rate • 3 native languages (English, Spanish, Karen) When Cunningham opened in 2002, its program was designed to be unique from other elementary schools in the district. Four distinctive programs were initiated at Cunningham, intending to make it different 7 and from other elementary buildings in Waterloo: 1) Continuous year calendar. Students started their school year in July and continued through June. While the calendar did not add additional student contact days, it ensured students had more, frequent breaks throughout the school year (3 weeks in fall, 2 weeks in winter, 3 weeks in spring, 6 weeks in summer) instead of 12 in the summer and 2 in the winter like the other 17 schools in Waterloo. This spring, after a lack of data to support its effectiveness, the continuous year calendar was abandoned, placing Cunningham student and staff on a traditional calendar, effective with the 2014-15 school year. 2) Dress code. Cunningham instituted a dress code for all students and staff, with dress pants/skirts and solid colored tops. Note: In 2009, the entire district adopted a very similar dress code. 3) Single Sex Classrooms. Cunningham experimented with single-sex classrooms (first class starting in 2004). Multiple teachers served girls-only or boys-only classes. In 2010, after a lack of data to support its effectiveness and the denial of a waiver from the Iowa Dept of Education, Single-Sex classrooms were abandoned. 4) Enrollment Continuity. Because of high mobility rates, Cunningham students were allowed to continue at Cunningham, even if moving into a different attendance boundary. This policy is being reviewed as we transition Cunningham students away from the continuous enrollment calendar. Leadership within Cunningham has been consistent over time, with the same principal serving from when the building opened through spring 2013 (11 years). At that time, as part of the reform efforts, there was a change in leadership which proved very controversial within the community. Cunningham has a history of low performance on Iowa Assessments. They are currently SINA 3 for reading and SINA 5 for math and restructured this year after a year of being on corrective action. They were designated as a Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) school in 2012. At that time, the district pursued a potential SIG grant, but in the end opted not to pursue as it would have required a leadership change, which sparked much consternation within the community. The building did experience significant gains in the 8 2013-14 school year (AYP 2012-13). Unfortunately, the gains were still part of a downward trend and were not enough to exclude them from being designated as PLA this spring. AYP trends are shown here for reading and math. (Blue line indicates AYP trends. Red line is a line of linear regression.) The LEA will provide in the chart below, a summary of the results of the comprehensive needs assessment including strengths, weaknesses, and areas of critical need as indicated by the data. In addition to SIG requirements, the Iowa Department of Education has included, in this needs assessment, areas to analyze that are being implemented by the State’s Collaborating for Kids (C4K) structure and through the State’s implementation of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Information provided will assist grant readers in determining needs as well as assist the State in providing technical assistance, if the LEA/building is awarded a new SIG. Use of bullet points is strongly recommended in completing this section. This information will assist grant readers in connecting the needs of the school with the selection of the intervention model chosen – which will be described in the narrative section. While it isn’t required to address each bullet point below, LEAs are encouraged to provide information for each point requested, honest reflection of need is far more important than demonstrating a strength in past practices: School: Cunningham School for Excellence Tier: I What? What does it look like? (Current Reality) Areas to Analyze, if available, as part of the comprehensive needs assessment LEA’s evidence-based/quantitative data, strengths, weaknesses, and areas of critical need 9 Leadership Do you have people to fulfill these roles, with protected time in their schedules, allowing them to do this work? • • • • • • Administrators (allowing principal to be the chief instructional leader) Supplemental support Instructional leader (responsible for understanding content, standards, and identification of research-based instructional materials for Iowa Core and interventions) Data leader (responsible for identifying assessments and their alignment to the Iowa Core, how to interpret and report results, and how to use the data to make instructional decisions) Professional Learning Community (PLC) or Data Team leader (responsible for allocating meeting times, supporting group decisions, and using data to make decisions) Response to Intervention (RtI) coach Are the following teams Administrative Leadership Team Structure • • • • Full-time principal (hired in July 2013 as part of reform effort) Lead teacher Literacy coach (FTE 1.0—no teaching assignment) Math coach (FTE 0.5—half time teaching assignment) Principal Responsibilities • Serve as the instructional leader • Follow the ISSL standards on setting vision, establishing a climate for learning, managing staff and budgets, involving parents and community, maintaining ethical behavior, navigating context of schools in society Lead Teacher Responsibilities: • Assist the principal with administrative duties • Provide instructional support, including RTI leadership • Assist with math data teams Literacy coach responsibilities • Provides literacy instructional support • Facilitates literacy data teams Math coach/interventionist responsibilities (.5 FTE) • Provides math instruction support to teachers • Serves as 3rd, 4th, 5th grades interventionist External Math Coaches Through a contract with the University of Northern Iowa through The Center for Teaching and Learning Mathematics (CTLM), three math coaches were provided to support the Cunningham teachers with services beginning in January, 2012 and will end in June, 2014. Responsibilities: • Provide intensive modeling, feedback, coaching, and professional development • Focus on the successful implementation of the newly adopted TERC Investigations series and to enable teachers to utilize the curriculum effectively. • Dedicate a minimum 16 days per academic semester of support • Meet with district and building administrators on monthly basis Support staff Other support personnel include a full time guidance counselor, full-time family support worker (who acts as a liaison between the school and home), and a behavior interventionist. 10 established and are all of the above positions represented District and Building Collaboration on these teams? • Building principal serves on district school improvement advisory team • District Leadership • District representatives have served on the SINA restructuring team, Team meeting monthly for data monitoring and school governance and each semester for a comprehensive review • Building Leadership Team • A district administrator serves as a coach/evaluator to the Cunningham principal and monitors implementation of district initiatives weekly/monthly Team Structures—Various professional learning communities exist within Cunningham: • Administrative leadership team (described above) • Building leadership team (admin team + 1 teacher from each grade level) • Grade level teams Teachers on the building leadership team primarily serve a limited role, with much being in the vein of communication. Roles include: • Share grade level concerns with administration • Disperse information given out during building leadership team meeting to grade level team • Create data team agendas • Order materials for the team Findings See Appendix A for results of teacher survey conducted as part of this needs assessment (April 2014). The needs assessment (including teacher survey and face-to-face interviews) revealed that time is scheduled on the administrator’s calendar to support/coach teachers, conduct walk-throughs, and attend data team meetings, but that time is often interrupted, causing him to miss meetings. The principal: • Did 73 formal classroom observations • Conducted weekly team leaders meetings • Did not attend weekly data team meetings Concerning team meetings: • The literacy coach facilitated 19/29 literacy data teams. • The lead teacher facilitated 19/35 math data team meetings. • 16 building leadership team meetings were scheduled (twice monthly) but a review of agendas indicates only eight were held prior to May 1. Feedback and coaching to teachers (gathered from teacher survey) • 17/33 teachers stated they did not receive regular feedback on their 11 • • • reading instruction 18/28 teachers stated they did not receive regular feedback on their math instruction Few teachers reported getting feedback on implementation of Iowa Core. Teachers report a lack of collaboration time to discuss and analyze data. Strengths The majority of needed personnel are available to do the work. A leadership structure is in place. Data teams (PLCs) are structured to allow for the MTSS model to take place. 1) 2) 3) 4) Weaknesses The principal and building leadership report they are often interrupted by parent, student, or other school-related issues. Visits to the building by district leadership confirmed this to be the case. While the support positions are in place, teachers and para-instructors indicated they weren't sure about their instructional decisions and needed more assistance to prioritize their work. Building leadership teams are not representative of the staff population. Multiple challenges faced math and literacy coaches: • Limited time designated for teacher professional development, planning and debriefing • Turn-over of administrative and teaching staff, creating a high need for intensive professional development and on-boarding. • Lack of classroom management skills necessary for successful implementation of the district curriculum. Critical Need 1) Establish protected times to provide instructional support and feedback. Evidence of protected times will include: • Feedback regarding classroom and behavior management and student engagement • A log of support completed by leadership and support personnel which includes coaching cycles and types of support provided to teachers. The log will be monitored and reviewed monthly by Executive Director of Elementary Education. • Time audits conducted by leadership and shared with Executive Director of Elementary Education • Monthly meetings with designated principal mentor 2) Determine training and support required for behavior interventionists, family support worker, teachers, and leadership team members to manage of interruptions currently detracting leadership away from teacher instructional support. Training will include reviewing and implementing principles of PBIS and Leader in Me. 3) Create building leadership teams which are representative off all stakeholders. 12 Standards, Instructional Materials, and Instructional Practices Implementation of Iowa Core Staff surveys and lesson plans indicate a lack of understanding of the Iowa Core. While the staff does implement district curriculum which is aligned to the Iowa Core, the connection to the Iowa Core is not understood. • What is the status of implementation of the Iowa Core in the district and the building? • District and building implementation of Iowa Core o Are there fidelity See Appendix B for samples of our implementation studies • District small group instruction; Initial Implementation Study of • Lesson plan critical elements for another second sample of district implementation implementation guidelines. checks • Time audit for literacy block Areas studied for fidelity of implementation Occasional implementation studies took place from building to building and across the district. One such initial implementation study from Cunningham represents a cursory look at small group instruction, a key component of the Good Habits, Great Readers instructional framework where the Iowa Core has shown to have a sound correlation. Literacy implementation studies: • Small group lesson plans • Progress monitoring of student learning • Mini-lesson components as part of the gradual release of responsibility model • Special note: The literacy coach has recently begun conducting a time audit of the literacy block. Math implementation studies: • Meaningful Distributive Instruction (5-minute math) • Use of progress-monitoring tools • Clear alignment between assessments and curricula • Alignment between assessments and curricula District curriculum/Iowa Core Alignment See appendix C: Curriculum and Iowa Core Alignment maps and sample curriculum documents Literacy findings: • Grades K-3--Tight alignment exists between the taught curriculum and formative assessments • Utilization of district curriculum is monitored through each building’s literacy coach and Title 1 department. • Grades 4-5--the alignment between assessments and curricula is not as clearly defined, nor is it as tightly monitored. This is clearly an area of need across the district. Research Based Materials—Selection Process & Alignment with Iowa Core ELA: • Teams of teachers representing all schools and grade levels conducted 13 • • • Research-based materials used by all teachers to teach English-Language Arts (ELA) and Math to all students (universal instruction) o How were materials chosen? o Do materials align with Iowa Core? extensive review Literacy materials adopted in 2010-- the major resource for universal instruction is “Good Habits, Great Readers” & “Good Habits, Great Writers” by Pearson. Curriculum has been updated to include pacing guides, curriculum maps and comprehensive assessment systems which show direct alignment with Iowa Core. Math: • Teams of teachers representing all schools and grade levels conducted extensive review • Curriculum and resource adopted in 2011-- the primary resource is TERC Investigations, a problem-based, inquiry approach. Literacy and math materials align with Iowa Core (See appendix C—Table of Contents for Grade Level Pacing Guides, and Sample Pacing Guide) Teacher Training for Use of Materials • All teachers received 2 days of initial training and received follow-up training on a monthly basis. • Teachers new to the district did not receive the comprehensive training provided the first year of adoptions. • Math coaches provided direct support of the use of materials. • While all necessary resources are in place, all UNI faculty serving as math coaches recommend further teacher professional development to successfully implement Iowa Core. Of particular concern is the lack of mathematics content knowledge necessary to implement the content of the Iowa Core. • A review of the data indicates while literacy and math materials are being used, there was a lack of evidence showing fidelity of implementation. Intervention Providers: Cunningham interventionist staff : • Six reading teachers equaling FTE of 4.5 staff • Eight special education teachers serving K-5 • Math specialist .25 Interventionist training • Interventionists received extensive training in the Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM), includes interventions for quality universal instruction. [The training follows the job-embedded Reading Recovery model but differs in that it is designed for small group settings. Teacher and student data is monitored monthly by a District CIM Coach. • Special education teachers received training in the co-teaching model. Teachers surveyed supported the use of the model. Highly Qualified Interventionists Cunningham leadership used the SKILL/WILL matrix to ascertain needs of 14 staff: Literacy interventionists: o 5/6 have high skill/high will o 1/6 have low skill/low will Special education teachers: o 4/8 are high will/ high skill o 3/8 are low skill/low will o 1/8 is high will/low skill o How were teachers trained to use materials? o Is there fidelity of implementation across classes and grades? • Intervention providers (who and what is their training?) Dedicated collaboration time: • 16/17 classroom teacher have common planning time five days per week. • 17/17 classroom teachers participate in math and literacy data teams one day per week for each content area • 17/17 classroom teachers meet with UNI math coaches one day per week [Note: UNI coaches report focus is often diverted from mathematics to other teacher responsibilities. In response, approximately two half-days per semester have been provided to teachers to collaborate together and with UNI math coaches. Teachers report this as extremely beneficial to their instructional effectiveness. Job-Embedded Professional Development All PD is expected to follow the Iowa Professional Development Model. • Teachers participated in weekly math and reading data teams (Professional Learning Communities) (PLC) to analyze data and instructionally plan using materials and the Iowa Core. • One-hour early dismissals every Wednesday (Review of agendas indicates the focus of the year as Reading (9 times), Math (10 times), Leader in Me/PBIS (10 times), Technology (3 times) • On-going coaching sessions with literacy and math coaches • Peer observations across building and district District focus on high-performing teachers • Building, maintaining, and growing quality teachers in each classroom is a district priority (i.e. growing teacher leaders from within as defined in the Teacher Leadership and Compensation grant) • Expanding to four model classroom teachers per school (2 literacy and 2 math) MTSS structure • Master schedule dedicates time for universal, targeted, and intensive schedules (as per MTSS) • Weekly problem-solving teams meet to discuss individual student who need additional support beyond the universal tier • ELP teachers (total FTE = 0.5) support instruction of students who need extension opportunities 15 • Teachers collaborating at least 1 time a week Findings Of the 28-33 teachers interviewed: • 23/28 (72%) understood math standards at their grade level • 20/33 (70%) understood reading standards at their grade level • 16/28 (57%) stated Iowa Core math standards and 14/33 (43%) of the IC Reading Standards are being implemented consistently across grade levels • Fewer than 30% stated they received feedback on implementation of Iowa Core Standards • 75% of the teachers feel they did not receive enough training to implement Iowa Core Math and 71% do not feel they receive enough on-going support • 58% of the teachers feel they did not receive enough training to implement Iowa Core Reading and 76% do not feel they receive enough on-going support • 50% of the special education interventionist rank “low skill” on the Skill/Will Matrix • • Job-embedded professional development that is aligned with Iowa Core and school’s comprehensive instructional program and materials • • • • • • • • How will the building/district leverage the expertise of high-performing teachers to facilitate improvement in instruction and support building/district priorities (e.g. educator effectiveness, collegeand career-ready standards, assessment literacy)? • • • • • • • • Services are organized according to Universal, Strengths 86% of staff are requesting more instructional support and value importance of implementing standards with consistency and fidelity. Professional development is job-embedded. Teachers have weekly collaboration time. Research based materials and assessments are aligned to the Iowa Core. Leadership capacity is being increased by using high performing teachers as leaders. In mathematics, a part-time mathematics educator has provided interventions. Interventionists are in place to provide support. Weaknesses Based on student data, the universal core instruction is not sufficient which places too many students at a targeted or intensive level. Implementation checks are infrequent and could be increased. Services to support the Targeted and Intensive Tiers for math instruction are needed. Teachers need deeper content understanding of the Universal tier goals in both literacy and math in order to understand necessary learning targets for supplemental and intensive tiers. Feedback and planning support need increased for teachers.. Math interventionist doesn’t have adequate time to provide interventions. Interventions for Tier 2 and Tier 3 students are unclear. Teachers report not being confident in their choice/delivery of strategies. The UNI Math Coaching program has provided job-embedded professional development over the past 1.5 years, however, time to provide feedback and planning support for the job-embedded 16 Targeted, and Intensive tiers professional development has been limited to the detriment of the effectiveness of the program. • • • • • • • Assessment and Data Collection What are your proficiency results and trends over time? • • • • • Critical Needs Establish a PD plan and a process for monitoring/documenting implementation of the plan Utilize the plan from Waterloo’s Teacher Leader and Compensation (TLC) grant to use high performing teachers to coach to excellence Provide teachers collaborative opportunities to dig into Iowa Core, curriculum, assessment and monitoring tools, and best practices for interventions. Provide specific, on-going opportunities for feedback on instruction Monitor implementation of Iowa Core and the building’s jobembedded professional learning. Increase support from district special education coach to support special education teachers. Provide opportunities for teachers and interventionists to increase content knowledge in order to strengthen the universal and intervention tiers. Proficiency trends on Iowa Assessments • Has history of low performance on Iowa Assessments (formerly Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) • Realized significant gains in the 2013-14 school year (AYP 2012-13) • Linear regression shows a downward trend (Blue line indicates proficiency trend. Red line indicates linear regression trend line.) Use of universal screening assessments with percent of students proficient, given three times per year to all students Formative assessments, aligned to Iowa Core Valid progress monitoring assessments (given weekly for interventions) with rate of growth checks PLCs or data teams meeting two - three times a week with regular implementation checks Student engagement data (recommended 17 80% - 90% of all students engaged at least 80% - 90% of the time) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by subgroup—includes proficiency using Iowa Growth Model 18 Screeners: Literacy • Used DRA2 as our screener 3 times per year • Switching to FAST in fall 2014 • Writing Prompt given 3 times per year—will collect data district-wide in 2014-2015 Math • Using Delaware screener in math • Using Skills Iowa math benchmarks three times per year (fall, midyear, spring) See Appendix D for results of Cunningham’s screener data (DRA2) and benchmark data for Skills Iowa. Formative Assessments • Using Skills Iowa—monthly for literacy and 3 times/year for math • Began use of Fontas and Pinnell benchmark assessments--conducted a minimum of twice per semester (teachers use iPads to record test results) • Teachers progress monitor daily small group lesson plans with running records. This information is used to inform instruction. • Math has assessment checklists built into curriculum 19 Findings Use of universal screening assessments (from teacher survey) • 43% of teachers felt confident to use math universal screeners • 49% of teachers felt confident to use reading universal screeners Formative assessments, aligned to Iowa Core • 68% of teachers indicated they used math formative assessments aligned to Iowa Core • 64% of teachers indicated they used reading formative assessments aligned to Iowa Core Valid progress monitoring assessments (given weekly for interventions) with rate of growth checks • 64% of teachers indicated evidence of math monitoring assessments • 61% of teachers indicated evidence of reading monitoring assessments Student engagement data (recommended 80% - 90% of all students engaged at least 80% - 90% of the time) • 57% of teachers indicated a high level of student engagement in math • • • • • • • • • • • Strengths PLCs meeting occur once per week for reading and once per week for math. Agenda created by the instructional coach or team leader prior to the meeting. Weaknesses Data reveal a lengthy trend of low performance on Iowa Assessments/ITBS Para-professionals do not attend data teams and rarely have time to get guidance from teachers. Paras report needing a better understanding of the math workshop model and how to use the materials. Principal has not been able to attend data team meetings due to interuptions in his schedule Critical Need Provide training to increase understanding of screening data and instructional response. Provide training for paraprofessionals on literacy and math instructional strategies and materials Monitor and increase student engagement Reinforce support and appreciation for co-teaching model—Ensure all have adequate training. Increased collaboration time between teachers. 20 Instructional Time Has there been an official audit of instructional time? • • • • • Length of school day Length of protected English-Language Arts (ELA) block, per day (recommended 90 – 120 minutes for grades K – 3, and 60 – 90 minutes for grades 4 – 6) Length of protected math block, per day Length and frequency of interventions Summer school, before-, or afterschool programs Findings • An official audit of instructional time has not been completed. The literacy coach has begun an audit of instructional time during reading block. See appendix B for sample of time audit. • Length of school day is consistent across all elementary schools in the district, with 6 hours 20 minutes of daily instructional time • All grades have a protected literacy block of 150 minutes [90 reading, 30 writing, 30 language study] • Math 90 minutes [70 universal/20 targeted] Interventions • Math: 20 minutes daily for all classrooms; grades 3-5 have additional 30 minutes for intervention • Literacy: 30 minutes a day for targeted students represented in chart. Reading Recovery teachers have not completed testing yet but they are anticipating 8/12 current students to be exited. Times per week for targeted students 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE .5 FTE .5 FTE 1.0 FTE .5 FTE # RR Students 0 8 8 8 0 0 # RR Students exited 1 1 2 # of Small Groups 9 4 1 1 9 5 Grade levels served K,1,3,4,5 K,1 1 1 K,1,2,3,4 K,1,2, 3 Summer School • District provides limited summer school programming for students exiting 2nd grade (3 weeks x 3 hours per day). Because Cunningham has been on a continuous year calendar, their students did not participate in summer school. They did, however, participate in the family literacy nights portion of summer school programming as described in the next bullet. • 2013 District Summer School Family Literacy Nights o 4 family nights facilitated by literacy coaches—parents learned how to support their child’s reading o Focused on striving readers in 1st & 2nd grades o Students/Parents left with 3 books each night o Students were tagged in the system so their progress could be monitored—accelerated gains were maintained • This summer, because of the return to a more traditional start time, Cunningham students in grades K-4 (next year’s 1st-5th) will be invited to attend 10 full days of summer academic programming, with special invitations being sent to students not yet proficient in math and or 21 • reading. Based on spring 2014 reading data from Iowa Assessments, the # of non-proficient students were as follows: 2nd grade = 30 non-proficient students 3rd grade = 36 non-proficient students 4th grade = 31 non-proficient students 5th grade = 22 non-proficient students Based on spring 2014 math data from Iowa Assessments, The # of non-proficient students were: 2nd grade = 30 non-proficient students 3rd grade = 37 non-proficient students 4th grade = 40 non-proficient students 5th grade = 28 non-proficient students Before/after School Programs • After school Program (FLASH-every Tues. & Thurs,) 16 weekly sessions reading-90 minutes 16 weekly sessions math-90 minutes • Intercession academics are held in the morning from 7:45-10:45 for two weeks, half of block of time reading/writing is taught the other half math is taught. In the afternoon students take part in extension activities. (These opportunities will not occur during 2014-15 year because Cunningham will switch to traditional calendar year. • • • • • • Strengths ELA and math blocks exceed recommendations. Math and literacy interventions occurring 4-5 times per week. Title I reading teachers focus on early intervention. Weaknesses No evidence of monitoring of after school program is available. Formal time audits have not occurred. The number of students exiting Reading Recovery during first round was 4. The expected number this semester is 8. Critical Needs: • Conduct time audits of instructional time. • Strengthen FLASH -Examine intensity, time allocation, and feedback -Criteria for selection -Instruction aligned to core • Include the FLASH and Reading Recovery data for analysis • Increase instructional time 22 Climate and Culture • • • • • • • • Findings Iowa Youth Survey Is there an analysis and trend from three previous years? Student mentoring Are there one-to-one adult/student mentors? School behavior plan Is there a set behavior plan/program for the building? Is the behavior plan/program implemented with fidelity? Mobility rate Teacher turnover rate New teacher mentoring/training Teacher survey Teacher skill/will levels Iowa Youth Survey is not applicable for elementary. Mentoring Nine students are currently matched with an adult in the Teammates Mentoring Program. School Behavior plan Cunningham has been a Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) school since 2008 and a Leader in Me (LIM) School for 3 years. PBIS focuses on the number of referrals each child has throughout the school year. The goal is for at least 80% of the student population to have 0 or 1 referral. As of May 10, 2014, 81.1% (318 out of 392 students in K-5) have 0 or 1 major behavioral referrals. 14.8% (58 out of 392 students in K-5) have 2-5 major behavioral referrals. 4.0% (16 out of 392 students in K-5) have 6 or more major behavior referrals. See Appendix E: Instructional Assistant (Para-professionals) Survey According to interviews and surveys, neither program is implemented with fidelity. • Only 37% of the instructional assistants (para-professionals) felt they understood the plans well enough to assist implementation. • The charts below indicate teacher responses to 2 questions about behavior plans or program. Q19 Climate & Culture: There is a set behavior plan/program for the building. 0, 0% 5, 18% 18, 64% 5, 18% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 23 Q20 Climate & Culture: The behavior plan is implemented with fidelity. 1, 4% 0, 0% 9, 32% 18, 64% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response Mobility Rate: • 14% --2013-2014 • 8.8% --2012-13 • 11.7%--2011-2012 Teacher turnover rate • 18 teachers are new to Cunningham this year--17 of whom are first year teachers New teacher mentoring/training Waterloo Community is in the process of moving away from a traditional oneto-one teacher mentoring program to a more comprehensive approach under the new Teacher Leader Compensation Initiative. All the new 1st and 2nd year teachers will have multiple layers of support: • Five additional days on their contract to attend induction training (New Teacher Institute) • A mentor teacher who assists them with the daily support required to navigate the building and system. • A mentor coach who is responsible to provide instructional and classroom management support. Each Mentor Coach will be assigned 15-17 new teachers. • Professional development modules will continue to be created with the purpose of supporting new teachers in processes, practices, and content knowledge. They will be in 2-3 hour segments and be an additional resource to assist new teachers. Teacher skill/will levels While the matrix first served as a tool this year for our SINA restructuring conversations, the leadership team utilized it again for the Needs Assessment to determine support for the teachers. The results are represented in the matrix. 24 High Will/Low SkillGuide High Will/High SkillDelegate 10 15 Low Will/Low Skill Direct Low Will/High SkillExcite 9 1 Strengths • District plan of support for new teachers • Adoption of quality behavior programs • 15 of the 35 teachers are in the “High Will/High Skill/Delegate” category Weaknesses • Support is not logged and tracked in a way to monitor progress • With such a high turn-over of teachers, fidelity of implementation of behavior plans presents a challenge • Since 15 teachers are in the “High Will/High Skill/Delegate” category, determine how their skills being utilized and developed. • • • • • • • Critical Needs Engage students in rigorous, highly engaging instruction which utilizes the Leader in Me philosophy Utilize behavior support trainers to assist with culture studies, behavior patterns, positive teacher interactions with students, and other proactive ways to have positive climate Increase awareness and understanding of PBIS and LIM Create personalized plans to move teachers forward and upward on the skill/will matrix Log and analyze support provided to teachers Family and Community Engagement Conference Attendance Attendance at fall P/T conference = 88% Attendance at spring P/T conference = 82% Evidence of parent/community involvement Parent advisory group o Evidence of diversity • 13% of parents have Infinite Campus Portal Accounts and average 16 logins per week • Title 1 teachers conduct parent meetings at least annually. • PTO meetings are conducted monthly but have low attendance. The role of the PTO is primarily fund-raising and support. Membership has dwindled to 3-4 regular attendees. • A parent advisory group is not organized at this time. 25 • • • • comparable to student diversity levels? Parent outreach programs Parent survey provided and analyzed yearly Content/focus of parent and community meetings Business partners Parent outreach programs • Operation Family Pack—156 students participating—provides backpacks of food for targeted families provided each weekend and holidays • Begin-dergarten Bags—provides activities and materials for preKindergarten students • Back-to-School Project—families sign up through local food bank to receive back-to-school supplies Parent survey administered and analyzed yearly. District utilizes K-12 Insight as our vendor to administer and analyze all surveys in the district. The most recent parent survey was conducted April 2014, but the data is not yet back from the company. Content/Focus of parent and community meetings • Grant information (academic) • Fall Festival—welcoming parents to school (social) • Title I meetings (academic) • Literacy and Math nights (academic) • Donuts for Dad & Muffins for Moms (social) • Parents and Staff vs Kids Kick-ball event (social) • Parent Involvement Day (academic) Business partners • City of Waterloo • KBBG Radio, 88.1 FM • AFFINA Community National Bank • UNITY Neighborhood Association • St. Timothy’s United Methodist Church • Gates Park Optimist Club • Hellman Associates, Inc. • Jesse Cosby Center • Martin Luther King Jr. Center Strengths • The community business partners offer great support to Cunningham. • Parent outreach is desired by staff and students. Weaknesses • The business partners are under-utilized for student support. • Parents interviewed were concerned about mutual respect between students and teachers. • Communication between teachers, parents, partners, and leadership needs strengthened. 26 Critical Needs • Increase communication and monitor it • Build capacity by utilizing teachers in “delegate” category • “Inform parents of positive things their children are doing” (quote from parent meeting) • Create and utilize a parent advisory group-seek support from District Communications Office to organize • Provide parent meetings which involve student work, productions, or activities. • “Get the parents here by showing us what our children can do.”-Quote from parent meeting School Identification of the Intervention Model The LEA will provide a detailed narrative describing how the selected intervention model was chosen and the correlation between the selected intervention model and the results of the comprehensive needs assessment. The LEA must address the needs of the LEA and the school in relation to the applicable intervention by considering factors that may include, but are not limited to, the following: • The leadership skills, training and experiences needed to drive school improvement efforts • The teacher skills, training, and experiences needed to drive school improvement efforts • The optimal assignment of staff to meet students’ needs • The operational flexibility to recruit and retain qualified staff • LEA supports in place to sustain implementation of the selected intervention • Other funding resources that must be brought into alignment with the selected intervention Detailed Narrative of “School Identification of the Intervention Model”. The LEA may provide additional information and analysis within the narrative section in order to identify the most pressing areas of need. (Please limit narrative to a maximum 15 pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font.): School: Cunningham School for Excellence Intervention Model Chosen: Transformation School Identification of the Intervention Model The district has a proven track record with the Transformation Model. When Cunningham was first identified, all thoughts immediately turned toward selecting the Transformation Model to guide our reform efforts. As a part of previous restructuring efforts at Cunningham, we held conversations with staff members to determine “fitness/match” with Cunningham’s needs. This is the type of process that would 27 have been required with the turn-around model, and all agreed it was not necessary at this point. In collective conversations with all stakeholders (staff, administrators, parents, Waterloo Education Association) consensus was quickly achieved that the district would pursue the Transformational Model. Needs Assessment Process The research literature embraces reflective practice as a necessary element of professional learning. “The time and effort invested in reflection yield a harvest of greater student learning, higher teacher morale, enhanced feelings of efficacy, and a more collaborative professional learning community” Costa (2006). The SIG comprehensive needs assessment process offered Waterloo Community School District the opportunity to engage in this in-depth process. In order to reach our desired outcomes, we examined our current reality by asking tough questions to which we often dug for answers. These answers offered windows into the learning environments of the students and professionals at Cunningham Elementary School. The refection, coupled with action, will lead to true educational transformation. Leadership The current leadership structure of Cunningham includes a principal, lead teacher, and literacy coach. These layers of administrative support provide guidance in the content areas, classroom management, instructional planning and all aspects of assessment administration, analysis, and use to drive instruction. This team also assists with facilitation of data/PLC teams. While the infrastructure of Cunningham provides personnel to do the work of the transformational mode, the needs assessment clearly indicated a need for focused, uninterrupted instructional leadership. The key phrase, “…with protected time in their schedules” promoted the most discussion and surfaced data which revealed the time was not truly protected by administrator, supplemental support (UNI Math Coaches), instructional leaders (literacy coach and lead teacher), data leader (shared responsibility of literacy coach, lead teacher, and district content strategist) or the data team leaders. 28 The 2013-14 school year was the first year this group of leaders has worked together at Cunningham. Through the work of the professional development team from Central Office, the members of Cunningham’s administrative leadership team strengthened their content knowledge by observing exemplary teaching techniques in buildings throughout the district, gained content knowledge from internal and external content experts, and received monthly feedback during monthly visits by the Executive Director of Elementary Education and the adapted SIG 30-day and extended visits used as part of Waterloo District’s SINA Restructuring Process. While extensive efforts were conducted, more support and professional learning needs to happen in order for the leadership team to drive student learning. The teacher surveys clearly reveal an appeal for more support. While 47% of the teachers of reading felt confident to teach the district curriculum, only 25% of the teachers felt confident to implement the district math curriculum. Responding to the question, “What would it take to grow every student, every year at Cunningham?” 29 out of 31 teachers replied they needed more support from leadership. Other areas needing support were: use of assessment data; data team processes; curriculum and standards, and feedback. It is what teachers do in the classroom that makes a difference. Richard Elmore’s work clearly highlights the importance of teachers’ content knowledge and skills, even more so than organizational structure within the building. In other words, simply having a structure, does not ensure learning will occur at high levels. Because there are 18 new teachers at Cunningham, their knowledge and skill needs to be strengthened at an accelerated pace. The UNI coaches, literacy coach, and, most of all, the teachers, expressed concern that more instructional content knowledge would be necessary for them to implement Iowa Core. In order to support the teachers through a comprehensive professional learning plan, the data also indicated the leadership team needs to have the protected time and enhanced professional development to get the work done. The changes in practices by teachers and leadership will then make it possible to fully utilize the 29 structures of the instructional day and professional learning opportunities already in place at Cunningham. Cunningham has sufficient time dedicated for math, literacy and weekly data team/PLC time. Based on the data, it is the consistency and precision of the use of the time that needs addressed. In order for instructional leaders to move from the “lucky” quadrant to what Doug Reeves calls the “leading” quadrant, leaders must use what we have learned during this comprehensive data analysis to develop a culture of collaborative inquiry for leaders, teachers and students, as well as implement the learning based on research and monitor the specific evidence of the learning. Based on the data gathered from parents, teachers, and leadership, the leadership will require training and support in the following areas: 1) Roles, Responsibilities, and Personal Goal-Setting: The Executive Director of Elementary Education will meet with leadership team prior to the onset of the school year to facilitate the process of identifying key roles and responsibilities of each member of the team. Leaders need to develop specific goals to ensure that all involved can determine their progress toward the goals and responsively adjust their practice or learning. 2) Time management: Each member of the leadership team must protect time in his/her schedule to fulfill responsibilities of the work. Time audits should be conducted on a monthly basis to determine if the work is being accomplished and the time is truly protected. External providers and the Executive Director of Elementary Education will need to support the leadership team through this reflective process and provide learning experiences and feedback. Teacher surveys should be conducted at the end of each trimester to inform leadership of support needs and areas of progress. 3) Monitoring, Feedback & Communication: Teachers are not being provided with quantity or quality feedback on a regular basis. The needs assessment process calls for clear curriculum implementation expectations from district literacy and math coaches. Observation feedback protocols 30 are not be used in literacy or math but are critical to the systemic process. During the SIG reform efforts, leadership teams will engage in classroom observations and provide specific feedback. Coaching cycles logs must be kept to track support provided to teachers. On a related matter, the needs assessment showed a need to increased, regular parent communication. 4) Consensus and team building: The team needs to create opportunities for consensus-building with the staff, perhaps using the protocol(s) from the SIG Symposiums. These opportunities will include, but not be limited to, information gathered during implementation studies, lesson planning expectations, parent communication ideas, and differentiated topics of support. The team must involve grade level team leaders and parents in this process as they do not necessarily feel they are part of the process. 5) Leadership capacity building: The administrative team must engage in regular learning walkthroughs with external providers and designated central office personnel to strengthen leadership and be responsive and proactive to classroom instructional needs. The central office staff has not successfully monitored the process or provided accountability to the process. Ideas from staff as to how to move forwarded including visits or video tapes of productive data team meetings to examine the critical elements required to engage in the collaborative inquiry. 6) Content Knowledge & Data Analysis: Leadership should strengthening their understanding of the Iowa Core, the district curriculum resources and assessments, and aligned instructional pedagogy. The leadership will utilize Innovation Configuration (IC) Maps and critical “Look-fors” already imbedded in the curriculum resources. District office staff must take a leading role in providing support and guidance to building leaders. Teachers 31 The 2013 teacher turn-over in staff resulted in 18 new or new to Waterloo teachers. Classroom teachers comprised 13 of the new staff. Support for the new teachers was one of the biggest challenges faced by building and district leadership during the 2013-2014 school year. Please reference Appendix A: Teacher Surveys for a clearer understanding of teacher perceptions. The building leadership utilized the Skill/Will matrix as a tool for identifying types of support. While the team indicated a need to clarify criteria for the each of the quadrant areas, initial perception data indicated a need to provide learning opportunities for teachers AND building a stronger commitment/shared vision. Through a contract with the University of Northern Iowa, Math Coaches were provided to support the Cunningham teachers. The Center for Teaching and Learning Mathematics (CTLM) at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) provided intensive modeling, coaching, and professional development to the elementary teachers at Cunningham Elementary School. The purpose of these services was to focus on the successful implementation of the newly adopted TERC Investigations series and to enable teachers to utilize the curriculum effectively. Services began mid-semester in the 2011-2012 school year and ended at the completion of the 2012-2013 school year. Services consisted of providing three instructional coaches beginning in January of 2012: one coach for kindergarten and 1st-grade teachers, one coach for 2nd and 3rdgrade teachers, and one coach for 4th and 5th-grade teachers at each school. Each instructional coach was provide the equivalent of one-half day of weekly, on-campus preparation and one day of weekly on-site instructional coaching, including modeling and feedback on implementation of mathematics teaching strategies to Cunningham Elementary teachers. Instructional coaches were present on-site a minimum of 16 days per university academic semester. Additionally, CTLM has scheduled and participated in monthly meetings with the Mathematics Curriculum Director and the Cunningham Elementary School administration. 32 A major challenge to the success of this project has been limited time designated for teacher professional development including feedback. While the job-embedded professional development model described above can be successful, time to debrief and plan has been very limited. The mathematical content knowledge of the staff is limited so A second major challenge to the success of this project has been changing personnel. Both the Cunningham administration and many of the teachers were replaced summer of 2013, resulting in the need to start from the beginning with new teachers and administration. A third major challenge has been the number of first-year or inexperienced teachers and their lack of management skills necessary for successful implementation of the math curriculum. While several of the new or inexperienced teachers possess exceptional management skills, many did not. Math The challenges faced by the external providers and staff to support teachers will be addressed in the following ways over the next three years: 1) On-going daily access to coaching is critical. Through SIG funding, it was recommended to pursue a full-time, on-site math coach. The professional learning should be based on the Making Sense of Mathematics coursework. The Making Sense of Mathematics and Teaching professional development courses are designed to deepen elementary teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and to support their implementation of research-based teaching strategies, thus improving instruction and student learning. The courses involve face-to-face learning, online connections and reflections, and coaching support through observations and feedback. The emphasis is on both subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge and supports teachers knowing mathematics from the perspective of how to help children to learn it. 33 2) Building leadership should provide explicit feedback on the instructional strategies used to implement the Iowa Core. 3) Implementation studies need to be conducted to monitor instruction during the 90 minutes of math instruction [the 5 Minute Math, the 3 part lesson, student discourse, progress monitoring of student learning]. Peer observations, video-taping, and self-reflection protocols should be considered for use as tools for professional growth. 4) New staff reported starting school unprepared. Professional development should be provided prior to the beginning of school to review the critical components of the district curriculum guide and resource materials. Literacy The Cunningham teachers have 120 minutes dedicated to literacy instruction. While 70% of the teachers stated they understood the Iowa Core Reading Standards, only 43% felt they were implemented consistently at their grade level. Only 27% indicated they received feedback on their implementation of the reading standards. Teachers were less confident on all questions regarding the writing standards. Major challenges face the leadership and teacher as they work together to implement quality literacy instruction which meets the demands of the Iowa Core. The first challenge is consistently implementing the standards and receiving feedback on the instructional techniques used to teach the standards. The second challenge addresses actual questions surrounding amount and quality of literacy instruction in the universal core. Areas to address include: instructional routines and procedures, instructional time, enacted and learned curriculum, instructional materials and practices, and the use of assessments including universal screeners. The leadership recently tried to answer the question, “How much actual instruction time occurs during the literacy block?” The literacy coach has just begun the process of conducting time audits. The instructional time of a 60-minute block from two classrooms varied from 32 34 minutes to 53 minutes (out of 60). This data does substantiate other building-wide data that indicates a lack of consistency of instruction across the grade levels. While the schedule allows for dedicated blocks, the quality and consistency of those blocks of time have not been studied. Cunningham leadership has conducted a small group reading implementation study which revealed 6 out of 18 teachers observed used some form of progress monitoring tool/process. One third of the teachers also completed small group lesson plans and referred to them as they taught. These data reinforce the need for extensive teacher support in the area of literacy. The third major challenge is supporting the beginning or new to the district teachers as they learn the foundations of the Waterloo Curriculum. While the district is flexible with the literacy topics buildings choose for professional learning, the topic must fit under the umbrella framework of a comprehensive literacy model which includes reading and writing workshops and language study. The Waterloo Curriculum aligns with the Iowa Core as it promotes “real” literacy tasks, not contrived or artificial exercises, but students need opportunity, demonstrations, ownership, timely response and feedback, relevance, and application. This can be provided in an organized, inquiry-based environment, but the teachers (especially new teachers) need practice and coaching to reach fidelity of implementation. Since eighteen of the teachers are just completing their first year either as a new teacher or new to Waterloo, teachers will need additional support to understand these critical foundations of the content and how they are embedded in the curriculum. Data suggestions that the following professional development experiences will increase staff knowledge and skills: 1. Initial and on-going professional learning explicitly aligning the Iowa Core with the Waterloo Curriculum. 2. Modeling, demonstrations, and practice in the use of resources provided in the curriculum. 35 3. Reading and writing relationship 4. Explicit Instruction 5. Identification and Evidence of literacy behaviors 6. Collaborative instructional planning with feedback 7. Data analysis, especially in the area of response to data and student work samples District professional development has not always aligned with learning needs at the building level, sometimes disregarding the need to on-board new staff. For example, a critical focal area identified as missing at Cunningham was providing feedback to ensure implementation of instructional strategies and student learning. The district must foster and ensure professional learning at the building level is differentiated to meets the needs of the individuals and grade level teams. The areas of focus should include: • Meeting the demands of the Iowa Core Writing Standards • Continuing the training and sharing of integrated units which weave literacy across content areas • Strengthen the RTI and PLC processes • Focus on uninterrupted teaching time While all these topics are critical to improve teacher and student learning, central office staff is committed to increase oversight and support to building leaders. Assignment and Commitment of Staff The data indicates evidence of sufficient staff to do the work. A major staff challenge facing leadership involves clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all staff and communicating the information to all stakeholders. Initial study of the roles and responsibilities indicates a need to provide another certified evaluator. This change will allow more administrative support for the principal which includes evaluations of staff. [Note: With or without the SIG grant, we will be adding an assistant principal to Cunningham 36 staff.] A second challenge is protecting instructional time in the schedules to do the work. While it is tempting to say, “Just do it”, or, “Don’t interrupt me”, the unprotected time indicates the need for further analysis. We believe we need to be proactive in defining the interruptions, examining the causes or implications for these interruptions, and problem-solving through them. Since behavior data gathered during this needs assessment indicates many issues are student-related, it will be critical to involve the teachers, behavior interventionists, counselor, family support worker and most of all, the students. The team will need to uncover why the interruptions are happening, whose responsibility it is to assist in the resolution, and what professional development is necessary to support the issues. Analysis of time audits, classroom engagement, and behavioral data must be conducted on a regular basis. A third, and possibly most important, challenge is developing ownership for the issues. When thirtyone teachers were asked, “What would it take to get grow every student, every year at Cunningham?” 17 of the responses had a tone of blame (students’ or parents’ fault). Twelve felt they needed a more united or committed staff, and overall, 24 indicated they simply need more support. The teachers are clearly ready to engage in conversations which will shift the ownership from one of blame and separateness to one of collaborative problem-solving and reflection. Transparency of conversations is also happening from support at the central office level. The Associate Superintendent of Director Human Resources and the principal conducted “Fireside Chats” with all staff members in April 2014. The administration wants to be assured the teachers are committed to improving the student learning and to being a critical part of a cohesive, collaborative professional learning community. These conversations are occurring with all Cunningham staff. This flexibility in hiring practices should allow a committed staff is secured. Operational Flexibility 37 Because of the history of the continuous calendar, the SIG dollars will be used during the transition from starting in July to starting in August. It was highly desired by parents to extend summer school opportunities to their children, beyond what is occurring for other elementary schools on a traditional calendar. Stakeholders indicated they would appreciate an early start date, as well as full day summer school opportunities (with transportation provided). The needs assessment showed that teachers are craving time to collaborate. During the spring of 2014, teachers engaged in extended collaborative opportunities with content support from a math specialist. The survey results indicated all 18 teachers “agreed or strongly agreed” that the collaborative planning made a difference in their math instruction and student learning. The teachers were in 100% agreement that the practice of protected collaboration time should be continued. Instructional Time Cunningham students also need additional time to accomplish their learning needs. Parents and staff indicated the need for additional (protected) learning time, and student achievement data would fully support that wish. [Note: The proposed calendar will include seven additional days of instruction beyond the district calendar, plus additional time after school with students after school.] LEA Capacity to Sustain Implementation Waterloo has established an excellent process for monitoring SIG plans and implementing with fidelity. Just as educators expect students to apply and transfer learning to multiple contexts, Waterloo Community District is committed to move beyond the pockets of excellence to patterns of excellence. Mike Schmoker is adamant that sustainability requires measurable goals, monitoring of the outcomes, and adjustment of the reform to meet the content of the building and community. Through this grant, monitoring will increase at all levels (district, building, and individual self-monitoring). • District and building leadership must work collaboratively on a monthly basis to monitor the goals 38 of the grant. • Teachers must monitor their own learning through self-assessments, surveys, and evidence of student growth. • Students must be engaged as part of the monitoring process. Teachers must embed daily opportunities for students to reflect and monitor their own learning. The parents and community partners will not only be informed but invited to share in the ownership of the transformation. The change in pedagogy and student achievement will not happen in one year, but given the focus on student learning and teaching, acceleration will be guaranteed. Other Funding Resources As clearly noted in the resource alignment section of this grant, multiple funding streams converge to support the work of this grant. In addition to SIG dollars, our work will be supported through the following funds: Title I, Title II, Title III, Title VI, IDEA, Iowa Core, at risk allowable growth, early literacy funds, class-size reduction dollars, Teacher Quality and local general fund. Concluding comments While tedious, the Needs Analysis provided time to reflect not only on how far we need to go as a district but also how far we have come. This assessment has honed our work and will serve as a baseline for measuring our progress. 39 School Goals The LEA will provide three-year SIG goal for Reading/Language Arts, All Students group: The LEA will provide three-year SIG goal for Math, All Students group: The LEA will provide three-year SIG goal for graduation rate, if applicable: School Goals Rationale (please limit narrative to a maximum of one page, double-spaced, no smaller than 12point font): 3-Year SIG Literacy Goal By spring of 2017, 70% of Cunningham students in grades 3, 4, and 5 will be proficient on the Reading Comprehension portion of the Iowa Assessment test. 3-Year SIG Math Goal By spring of 2017, 65% of Cunningham students in grades 3, 4, and 5 will be proficient on the Math portion of the Iowa Assessment test. Rationale for goals: A review of the FAY reading data over the last 10 years shows that an average of approximately 54% of FAY students at Cunningham in grades 3-5 have been proficient or met Iowa growth model criteria. An analysis of the trend line over this timeframe presents a trend line with a negative slope with scores ranging from approximately 60% proficient and approximately 40% proficient. Further analysis of achievement data during this timeframe illustrates that gains made in reading were not sustained in the subsequent year. A review of the FAY math data over the last 10 years shows that an average of approximately 51% of FAY students at Cunningham in grades 3-5 have been proficient or met Iowa growth model criteria. An analysis of the trend line over this timeframe presents a flat trend line with a slightly negative slope with scores ranging from approximately 59% proficient and approximately 43% proficient. Further analysis of achievement data during this timeframe illustrates that gains made in math have been relatively dynamic, yet 40 gains made have not been sustained. After reviewing research related to school turnaround models and 10 years of Cunningham longitudinal math and reading data, building and district administration collaborated to identify goals that are ambitious, yet attainable and able to be replicated over time. Taking the average proficiency percentage over the past 10 years, our goal is to maintain a continuous increase of 5% over the next three years as shown in the goals above. Needs Analysis (10 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to the needs assessment and analysis as well as the selection of the intervention model: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 Little or no relevant data has been provided and/or the analysis of needs is minimal. The fit between the need of the school and the model chosen is minimal. 2 3 Needs identified and some analysis conducted. A general fit between the needs of the school and the model chosen has been conducted. 2 5 Analysis is evident and needs are clearly and explicitly written. The fit between the needs of the school and the model chosen is specifically and conclusively demonstrated. 2 (2) Points Resource Alignment The LEA must ensure that each school or each priority school that it commits to serve receives all of the 41 State and local funds it would receive in the absence of the school improvement funds and that those resources are aligned with the interventions. LEA applications will need to describe how other federal, state, and local fiscal resources will be used to promote and support the implementation of each school’s plan described in the LEA application. Specifically, an LEA will need to identify the specific funding source, the amount of resource being committed to assure full and effective implementation of the interventions, and how each of the other funding sources supports the implementation and follow-through of specific actions. The SEA will conduct on-site semester reviews at each SIG funded school. As part of the monitoring visit the school will need to be able to demonstrate the alignment described in their approved application. Schools not able to demonstrate alignment will be given a deadline for developing the alignment with other interventions or risk losing their SIG grant. The LEA will identify relevant areas of alignment with other federal, state, and local funding sources (adding additional rows as needed): Resource How those dollars alignment Title I, Part A Aligns with work to increase proficiency in literacy. Provides additional materials (beyond general budget and what is proposed in this grant) Title II, Part A Reduces class size. Aligns with academic goals. Helps increase positive student behaviors and responsible behavior. Title II, Part B Not applicable Title III, Part A Supports goals to reach all diverse learners. Provides professional development for ELL teachers and general ed teachers who serve English Language Learners. IDEA Aligns by meeting students’ academic needs for literacy and math instruction. Because part of the money is used to fund a district level interventionist who serves the general population of students (proactive targeted money—5%), it also aligns with positive student behaviors. Other Federal Resources Supports assessment of literacy and math. McKinney-Vento Homeless Grant Aligns with and support academic and behavioral needs of homeless students. Other State Resources • State Class Size Reduction— Reduces class size. Aligns with academic goals. Helps increase positive student behaviors and responsible behavior. • Iowa Core dollars support the math goals. • At risk dollars align with MTSS by supporting time for intensive Tier 3 assistance outside of the regular school day • Shared vision and Head Start pre-kindergarten funding provides and early learning experience for our four year old students who come to Cunningham. Their PK work connects with all three goals (literacy, math, responsible student behavior. • Gifted and talented—supports enrichment of literacy and math. 42 Local Resources • Early Literacy—aligns with literacy goals by providing addition learning experiences for students during the summer. Aligned to all Cunningham SIG goals. Descriptive Narrative of Alignment (Please limit narrative to a maximum of one page, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Resource Alignment The district’s strategic plan is in direct alignment with the initiatives outlined in this grant—increased proficiency in literacy, math, and positive student behavior. The commitment of district resources (including time, personnel, dollars) to the components of the strategic plan will continue to be provided at the same level it would be without school improvement funds. In addition to SIG dollars, our work will be supported through the following funds: Title I, Title II, Title III, Title VI, IDEA, Iowa Core, at risk allowable growth, early literacy funds, class-size reduction dollars, Teacher Quality and local general fund. Please see Appendix F for a chart showing amounts and alignment between Cunningham’s SIG initiatives and federal, state, and local dollars. [Figures shown in Appendix F represent the approximate annual amount of resource alignment for Cunningham School for Excellence.] Assurance The LEA assures that each school that it commits to serve receives all of the State and local funds it would receive in the absence of the school improvement funds and that those resources are aligned with the interventions. Resource Alignment (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to the resource alignment: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting Points 43 (3) 1 Other federal, state, and local fiscal resources are not described. 1 3 A partial description and identification of other federal, state, and local resources is provided, but does not fully describe the use of those resources in the implementation of each school’s plan. 1 5 Other federal, state, and local fiscal resources are identified and their use to promote and support the implementation of each school’s plan is described. Amounts are identified for specific implementation activities or actions. 1 Actions The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to— a) Capacity Determine its capacity to provide adequate resources and related support to each Tier I and Tier II school, or each priority school, identified in the LEA’s application in order to implement, fully and effectively, the required activities of the school intervention model it has selected: The LEA will consider school, district, and community capacity when selecting an intervention model, as each intervention model requires unique requirements. This criteria, outlined in the chart below, will be used to evaluate the LEA’s capacity to fully and effectively implement the selected intervention in each school will be evaluated according to the following capacity factors: Capacity Factors Models Staff has been identified with the credentials and capability to implement the selected intervention. All The ability of the LEA to serve the overall number of Tier I and/or Tier II schools identified on the application has been addressed. All The LEA has described the procedure for monitoring the actions and activities identified in the plan including the frequency and fidelity of the professional development, the opportunities for teachers to collaborate, as well as the use of formative data to assure increase in student performance. All A commitment to support the selected intervention has been indicated by: All 44 • • • The teachers’ union (required by Iowa SF 2033) The local school board Parents A strategic planning process has already taken place that successfully supported the selection and implementation of the intervention. All The LEA’s ability to recruit new principals with the ability to implement the select intervention. Turnaround, Transformation Plans to and barriers from adding at least an hour of additional instruction time per day, or alternative/extended school-year calendars that add time beyond the additional hour of instruction time per day for each identified Tier I or Tier II school to be served by the application have been outlined. Turnaround, Restart, Transformation The ability of the LEA to successfully align resources to the actions identified in the plan for full and effective implementation of the intervention and to ensure sustainability Transformation A description of a governance structure is described that includes an LEA-based Turnaround Officer(s) or Turnaround Office that will be responsible for taking an active role in the day-to-day management of turnaround efforts at the school level and for coordinating with the IDE. Restart Access to geographic proximity of higher achieving schools, including but not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available. School Closure The opportunities for teachers to collaborate, particularly in analyzing universal screening data, summative data, and formative data to assure an increase in student performance. All The support of families and community members to facilitate full and effective implementation of the turnaround model selected. All 45 Descriptive Narrative of Capacity (Please limit narrative to a maximum of four pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Capacity Waterloo has the capacity to align and provide resources/support to Cunningham School for Excellence to fully and effectively implement the required activities of the transformation model. Areas considered in this section are detailed below: Credentialed and capable staff. Through agreements with our teacher association, conversations with all current staff members were held to discuss the desires/abilities to join in Cunningham’s turn-around efforts. Any staff members who were not prepared, willing or capable of meeting the expressed expectations were asked or allowed to transfer to a higher performing building. Expectations will be communicated and discussed with all new hires to ensure alignment in staffing. District capacity to serve the SIG schools. Waterloo is no stranger to the change process that comes when a building is designated as Persistently Lowest Achieving. Previously, three schools have been funded through SIG dollars. Our district is highly committed to the reform process and has gone above and beyond required elements of the transformation model. Our monthly monitoring process (described in Section B3.b--Design) have clearly demonstrated our capacity to serve SIG schools at high levels. Waterloo has high expectations, clear vision, and an articulated accountability process. Capacity to monitor PD, collaboration, data. Cunningham’s professional development will be closely monitored by district and central office staff. Implementation logs and iObservation data (Marzano protocol) will be reviewed at the district level, while data team minutes and student work will be examined in building to determine the level and fidelity of implementation and to identify the need for additional professional development, coaching and feedback. Building administrators will attend all data team meetings to measure the level and impact of collaboration efforts and data analysis. Commitment of union, board, parents. Frequent meetings between our teacher association occur, and we 46 have established an extremely collegial relationship with them. The association has supported a rigorous selection process, allowing administrators to transfer staff who are not effective in a high-need school to other buildings. They have also supported changes to the master contract and annual evaluations. The school board has actively supported our transformation work and has approved the use of funds to support our work. They ask for and receive regular updates about our progress and they seek accountability concerning reform efforts. There is evidence that Cunningham parents support the transformation model and our reform efforts. However, it is noted that Cunningham parents have been concerned with the amount of change occurring in the past two years, with most of the frustration surrounding a change in leadership. After a difficult year, there is evidence that the community surrounding Cunningham is settling in and supportive of efforts to improve achievement and expects higher achievement. Strategic planning process. Our district’s strategic plan is in direct alignment with our transformation model reform efforts. Our strategic planning process (including planning, implementation, monitoring and adjustment processes) will be upheld as we enact the SIG grant. Regular review and planning will be done by building and district staff with input from parents, students, and community. Modifications to interventions (PD, data team process, leadership efforts, community engagement) will be made based on data received during those reviews. We plan to utilize the state’s SIG support team in this process, as we have with all other SIG buildings. Capacity to recruit a new principal: The current principal was hired in July 2013 (less than one year ago) as part of the turn-around process; therefore, we will not be recruiting a new principal. We will, however, provide support each month to the principal and his team, including high expectations, coaching and accountability measures. Increased learning time: Cunningham has the capacity to increase student learning time by 216 hours and teacher professional development time by a minimum of 26 hours (almost 4 days). [It should be noted that the district plans to increase learning time as much as possible within the funding limitations of this SIG 47 grant.] We are adding 8 days to the teacher contract, 7 of which will be student contact days. In addition, all students will have the opportunity to attend an extra hour of learning three times per week. We are currently investigating the feasibility of adding 5-7 minutes onto the school day which results in approximately 15-20 additional hours of instruction. [Note: This is an area for further investigation and collaborative discussion with Cunningham teachers and our teacher association.] Finally, all students will be invited to 2 full weeks of summer school programming (with transportation provided). As one of the nine characteristics that distinguish 90-90-90 schools with the greatest academic gains, collaboration between and among teachers has been a strong focus during the past two years. Teacher collaboration time will be built into the schedule through common planning time and additional time outside of the school day. Cunningham teachers currently use two of their planning period to engage in the data driven decision making process. During this time, teacher teams collaborate on student achievement data and instructional delivery. This structured collaboration process will also be monitored through observation, written minutes and reflections. Through SIG funding, teachers will gain approximately 40 hours in added professional development/collaboration time beyond what exists now. Ability to align resources: With three previous SIG grants, the District has already demonstrated its capacity to align district resources (funds, personnel, practices, PD) with the goals of the transformational model. Examples of aligned resources are as follows: • The District Strategic Plan includes literacy, math and school climate projects which are in direct alignment with the goals of this grant. • District office staff supports the district-aligned SIG goals. Curriculum Directors, instructional coaches, and administrators will continue to monitor implementation of curriculum through walk throughs, observations, data teams, surveys and feedback, and assessment results. • Formative and summative assessment (Skills Iowa, DRA2, district benchmarks) are clearly aligned with the work detailed in this grant and will be monitored for improvement and needed adjustments. • Data teaming (PLC) is already in place and supports improvements in teaching and learning. The data team 48 process involves teachers in analyzing data and instructional responses. • Technology resources (hardware including Promethean boards, software, training, PD, and technical assistance) align with and provide significant support to Cunningham as they implement their SIG plan. • Our use of support staff (i.e. special education, ELL, Title I, and G/T) to develop, monitor and provide instruction focuses on meeting the needs of each diverse learner. • Human resources will support implementation of Cunningham’s plan by assisting in the hiring and evaluation processes and will align hiring expectations with the SIG grant goals. • Collaborative partnerships will be aligned with Cunningham’s PLA plan to assist the district in providing needed support to improve student achievement. Partnerships with AEA267, UNI, Wartburg and Cunningham’s Partners in Education will be instrumental in providing professional development in literacy and math. Collaboration on review of data—screener, formative, summative: Additional time for collaboration is being funded through the grant, during which teachers will focus on data to improve teaching and learning. Cunningham will utilize the systems established in Waterloo to administer assessments, then aggregate/disaggregate and analyze the data from formative and summative data. Cunningham will be implementing the FAST screener as part of the state’s RTI initiative. In math, they will utilize the district screener (and subsequent diagnostic tests) to make decisions about student need. Cunningham staff is participating in the RTI coaching academy offered through our local AEA (presenter: Mike Mattos) and will enhance their abilities to use data to inform their SIG work. Family/Community Engagement. As in our other funded PLA buildings, we will be hosting monthly family learning nights for our students. A budget will support this work, and staff will be assigned to planning, leadership and supervision on a rotating basis. Family nights at Lincoln and Cunningham have been very successful and will serve as a guide for Cunningham. 49 Capacity (10 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to the LEA’s/building’s capacity to fully and effectively implement the required activities of the intervention model selected: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not described the support it will provide each Tier I and II school in its implementation of the chosen intervention model. The LEA has not addressed capacity criteria. 2 3 The LEA has described the support it will provide each Tier I and II school in its implementation of the chosen intervention model, but is inconsistent or weak and does not address all capacity criteria. 2 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it has the capacity to fully and effectively implement the intervention model it has chosen and addresses all capacity criteria. 2 Points b) Design and implement interventions Design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements of the turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model; The Iowa Department of Education’s (IDE) School Improvement Grant application for LEAs will require the LEA to not only identify which of the four intervention models each Tier I and Tier II school will engage, but to describe the specific actions the LEA will take to implement the required elements of the specified intervention model. The LEA will also be required to provide a timeline of action for each of the required elements and associated actions. In this regard, LEA applications will be judged in each of the following areas: a) The inclusion of actions for each element of the intervention model b) The extent of LEA and school support and resource committed to the intervention model, c) The extent to which the actions promote and support full and effective implementation of each required element, d) A timeline for actions that is reasonable in supporting effective implementation while promoting an aggressive engagement of action e) The extent to which parents and community, school staff (administrative, instructional, and staff), and other stakeholders were engaged in the planning and decision making process, and f) The adjustments to specified LEA and school policy, procedure and practice to accommodate, support, and sustain the intervention model. LEAs serving a Tier III school must identify actions that the LEA will take to implement a corrective action plan developed in concert with the Iowa State School Support team. This corrective action plan will include many of the above actions. 50 Intervention Models Chart: The chart below will assist the LEA in assuring that the required activities for each model are addressed as well as allowing the LEA to identify the permissible activities they wish to implement. THE FOUR INTERVENTION MODELS REQUIRED LEA Activities Replace Principal (except those hired previously as part of turn-around or transformation effort) Operational flexibility (calendar, time, budget, staffing) Replace >50% of Staff using "locally adopted competencies" Close & reopen under Charter School Operator/CMO/EMO Close the school and send students to nearby schools - including but not limited to charter schools or new schools Rigorous, transparent and equitable teacher and leader evaluation systems using student growth in significant part AND other measures AND designed with teacher/leader input TURN- TRANS- AROUND FORMATION Identify/reward effective personnel & remove ineffective personnel High-quality, ongoing, job-embedded, instructionally aligned professional development permissible Financial incentives, career opportunities and flexible work conditions New governance structure permissible permissible Ongoing family and community engagement Ongoing intensive technical assistance from LEA, SEA or external partner CLOSURE permissible Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned Promote the use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time Socio-emotional and community supports RESTART permissible Required 51 Permissible Activities in the Turnaround and Transformation INTERVENTION MODELS PERMISSIBLE Activities TURN- TRANS- AROUND FORMATION New school model (e.g. themed, dual language) Additional compensation to attract and retain staff System to measure impact of professional development Ensure that school is not required to accept teacher without mutual consent of teacher and principal regardless of teacher seniority Periodic reviews of curriculum Response to Intervention model Additional supports to address students with disabilities and English language learners Using and integrating educational technology Increasing opportunities for advanced coursework, AP, IB, STEM, early college, dual enrollment, thematic learning academies Summer transition or freshman academies (middle to high school) Graduation rate improvement reforms Early warning systems for at-risk youth Partner with organizations, clinics, agencies, etc to meet students' social, emotional, health needs Extend or restructure school day Implement approaches to improve school climate and discipline Full-day kindergarten or pre-K Per-pupil school-based budget formula weighted by student needs Design and Implementation Narrative – design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements, aligned with specific intervention chosen (please limit narrative to a maximum of four pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): 52 Design and Implement Interventions At the conclusion of the needs assessment, we worked with the planning team (district, building, parents, community) to design our SIG plan, paying close attention to the required components as well as the permissible requirements. REQUIRED REFORM ACTIVITIES Replace principal: The current principal was hired in July 2013 (less than one year ago) as part of the turnaround process; therefore, we will not be recruiting a new principal. We will, however, provide support each month to the principal and his team, including high expectations, coaching and accountability measures. Operational flexibility: Our design includes flexibility in Cunningham’s calendar by: • increasing student contact days by 7 (from 180 days to 187 student contact days) • increasing professional development opportunities with 1 additional PD day paid through SIG grant (flexibly scheduled throughout the school year), in conjunction with other collaborative days paid from other funding streams • increasing length of school day for portions of the school year from 7.5 daily hours to 8.0 daily hours. Rigorous evaluation systems (using growth): Teacher effectiveness is the single most important determiner of student achievement. Therefore, Waterloo Schools is committed to implementing a rigorous, transparent, and equitable teacher and leader evaluation system designed to improve instructional effectiveness, beyond a basic level of competency. Using previous SIG evaluation systems as a model, Cunningham teachers and building/district administrators will outline the new rigorous evaluation sytem— The final process will be determined and communicated by September 15, as per our master agreement. • Evaluation instrument will remain the same but conducted annually. • With teacher input, the focus of Iowa Teaching Standard 3, 4, and 5 will be enhanced. • Teachers and leaders will include student achievement goal(s)—growth data—in individual professional development plans (IPDP). Achievement data (i.e. Iowa Assessment, DRA2, Skills Iowa, and CFAs) will 53 be used to determine effectiveness of strategies, instruction, and interventions. The status and growth toward these goals will be included in the teacher’s formal evaluation—due March 25—to the central office. As per an agreement with the Waterloo Education Association, student growth will not be the sole determiner of teacher proficiency or lack of proficiency. • Teacher evaluations will include data from informal observations done during weekly data team meetings & walk-throughs and documented using Marzano’s protocol on the iObservation tool. Identify and reward effective personnel and remove ineffective personnel: Because Waterloo received a Teacher Leadership and Compensation grant for the 2014-15 school year, we will identify and reward effective personnel and remove ineffective personnel as per district protocol. (Goal 5 of our TLC plan: Identify, honor and reward effective teaching by providing pathways for career opportunities that come with increased leadership responsibilities, shared decision making and increased compensation.) The plan developed between the WEA and District administration will include protocols for removing those who have failed, after full support/coaching and ample opportunities, to improve their instructional effectiveness. Although not required in the transformational model, the WEA and Waterloo administrators have agreed that each Cunningham staff member meets the expectations for Cunningham SIG staff. “Fireside chats” with staff are currently being held to determine staff competency and desire to continue at Cunningham. See Appendix H for a copy of Cunningham teacher expectations. High quality PD: Intensive job-embedded professional development with monitoring of implementation and additional time for collaboration and feedback will be provided in all areas of professional development. Our budget reflects the addition of a math coach (to the existing literacy coach position) and will assist us planning, delivering, and monitoring the impact of our professional development at Cunningham. When reviewing our data and prioritizing our action plans, we identified the areas of needed professional development and categorized them into three focus areas: a) content knowledge, b) instructional effectiveness, and c) learning environment. All professional development at Cunningham SFE during the 3- 54 year cycle of the grant will focus on these areas. Financial incentives, career opportunities, flexible work conditions: District administration, Waterloo Education Association (WEA) and Cunningham staff will collaboratively develop a plan to incentivize accomplishment of goals. As in previous SIG plans, we have paid additional days of pay for accomplishing goals. This same concept will be discussed with Cunningham staff. An example of our incentive pay plan from a previous SIG is included for your perusal in Appendix I. The staff contract will include days of flexible Professional Development, with staff input on the content and dates of PD opportunities. Currently, we are collaboratively exploring other opportunities and flexibly work conditions: Additional paid opportunities to collaborate daily Flexible PD opportunities (after school, evenings, Saturdays) Additional pay for increases in work load (consistent with the TLC grant) Opportunities to attend conferences/summer institute Additional leadership opportunities for teachers (consistent with TLC grant) Additional opportunities to serve in coaching opportunities (consistent with TLC grant) Paid opportunities to connect with parents beyond the school day Use data to identify and implement instructional program AND promote use of student data to inform instruction: Building and district staff will utilize implementation and impact data to determine instructional programming. Status data: Enrollment numbers (i.e. G/T program, Title 1, ELL, special education, MTSS tiers) Impact data: o Screening and diagnostic data from our MTSS process (FAST, DRA2) o Formative data from building benchmarks, Skills Iowa, referral data o Summative data from end of year assessments, Iowa Assessments, PBIS tier data Implementation data: Walk through data recorded iObservation, implementation studies, teacher 55 self-assessment, data team (PLC) minutes, collaboration opportunities between/among staff, perception data from new and career teachers Increase learning time: Cunningham’s SIG plan increases student learning time by 216 hours and teacher collaboration time by at least 26 hours. Because of the limits place on the SIG funds, we are exploring outside sources of funding to increase our student + collaboration hours by a minimum of 300 hours, as provided in the guidance from Q-32 of the SIG guidance (Frazier & Morison, 1998). For specific details of increased student and teacher collaboration time, please see Appendix J. Teacher collaboration time has been built into the existing schedule through common planning time, with two planning periods dedicated to data teams (PLCs). During this time, teacher teams collaborate on student achievement data and instructional delivery. Family/Community Engagement: Our strategic plan includes extensive work in parent involvement and community engagement and identifies them as high priority projects. Parent/Family/Community events will be held monthly, following the models developed in other SIG schools in Waterloo. Each event will include attendance incentives (food, door prizes), learning opportunities (practice with reading/math), and home involvement materials (books, math games). Events will be planned by leadership, teacher teams and the building’s full time family support worker. Other engagement activities will include social events, PTO opportunities, and increased written communication (newsletters, Connect Ed calls, Campus Parent Portal). Intensive technical assistance: Waterloo Community School District often utilizes the assistance of external educators and organizations to provide ongoing technical assistance. The building leadership team (consisting of administrators and teachers), in conjunction with district level administration, will make decisions about assistance needed to fully implement the PLA plan. The school currently receives technical assistance from AEA 267 and will continue to do so, even as a PLA-identified building. The Department of Education will also offer technical assistance by monitoring the plan and advising the process. PERMISSIBLE REFORM ACTIVITIES 56 New governance structure: The district will be heavily involved in the governance of Cunningham School For Excellence. The district will not only have oversight of the grant but reserves the final decision making authority. Response to intervention model: As a function of the SIG grant, Cunningham will be engaging in the C4K initiative of MTSS and will be implementing MTSS, FAST and Iowa Tier. Timeline for actions that is reasonable in supporting effective implementation while promoting an aggressive engagement of action: TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION Date July 2014 and ongoing Action Communicate SIG plan, in its entirety or via a quick reference guide (as appropriate for various stakeholders—i.e. staff, parents) May 2014 and ongoing Secure all staff July 2014 Review principal expectations June 2014 Plan and host New Teacher Academy for all new Academy is July 28-Aug 1 teachers in the district—consider inviting the 18 teacher at Cunningham who will be in their 2nd year Summer 2014 and ongoing Create a PD plan that supports all work in this SIG. Deliver professional development, gather feedback via surveys, modify as needed Beginning in August 14 and Monitor data for leading and achievement continuing with the indicators-report progress and next steps to all frequency as specified in the relevant stakeholders monitoring plan August 2014 and ongoing Plan family engagement events, secure needed materials/resources August 2014 (and biannually or as needed) Fall 2014 and monthly Revisit behavior expectations and provide additional training to staff, with a special focus on paraprofessionals. Review expectations for major and minor referrals. Establish schedule/process/expectations for giving feedback on walk-throughs, lesson plans, data team (PLC meetings) according to district expectation Monitor feedback to staff for quantity and quality June 2014 (prior to June 10last day of school) By September 15, 2014 Meet with staff to share contract changes that will occur when we receive grant Communicate evaluation criteria to staff August 2014 and each summer Who Responsible District and Bldg Administration Saddler, Smith Connolly Smith and Ed Services Ed Services and Bldg Leadership team, with input from staff McNulty, Ed Services, Iowa DE SIG support staff Saddler, Literacy coach, media specialist Saddler, teachers Connolly, Saddler, Bldg Admin Team Connolly, Ed Services, Saddler Smith, Saddler, Lindaman Saddler 57 August 2014 and ongoing for rounds 1, 2, 3 June of 2015, 2016, 2017 June of 2015, 2016, 2017 Prepare for FLASH, including identification of and invitation to students Prepare summative reports on progress and next steps at the end of years 1, 2, 3 Craft goals for year 2 and 3, using baseline data Saddler, teachers McNulty, Saddler McNulty, Saddler The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to the design and implementation of the intervention model: Rubric Value Design and Implementation of Interventions (10 points maximum possible) Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not described the actions it will take, and resources it will provide, to implement the chosen intervention model. The LEA has not provided a realistic timeline. 2 3 The LEA has described the actions it will take, and the resources it will provide, to implement the chosen intervention model, but is inconsistent or weak and does not address all required elements. A timeline was provided. 2 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it will take the required actions, provide appropriate resources, and has addressed all required elements to fully and effectively implement the chosen intervention model. A realistic timeline was included. 2 Points c. External Providers Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, to ensure their quality; The LEA must identify the rationale for engaging an external provider, and must assure alignment between the school’s needs and the services to be provided by the external provider. The following are suggested actions to consider when identifying/recruiting, screening, and selecting external providers: 58 Identifying/Recruiting: • • • • Designate a district-level position to research providers from around the country Gather information from other SIGs or schools with similar needs to determine which providers have a proven, local track record Gather request for proposals (RFP) or request for information (RFI) matching your district/buildings specific needs Gather request for quote (RFQ) Screening External Providers: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Request and review the provider’s documents and frameworks including, but not limited to, handbooks, annual reports, etc. Request data and information regarding demographics of the schools/districts the provider has previously served Request and review the providers performance goals and benchmarks to assure alignment with the district/school needs Request data pertaining to how the provider has measured their previous success, including whether goals were met, attendance data, teacher/student/family perception data, and family involvement Request a listing of all schools/districts served Speak with districts/schools identified as having used the provider’s services Observe the provider in action Request information on quality controls the provider has in place regarding internal monitoring, particularly monitoring of staff Determine if the external provider has a thorough understanding of the Iowa Core Curriculum Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the provider Determine how the provider communicates with the district, school, students, community Evaluate the prices charged by the provider to determine if the services are reasonably priced and costeffective Examine the provider’s financial viability Selecting External Providers: • • • • • • Assure alignment between the district/school goals and needs with the providers program/services Assure comfort and trust in the providers process for data collection and self-assessment Assure the provider has the proper understanding of the district/school needs and has the means to meet those needs Examine the provider’s timeline assuring it fits with the district’s/school’s needs Assure the provider has a means for engaging families and community with their provided services Assure the provider has provided a suitable budget with relevant and appropriate costs Monitor and Evaluate External Providers: • • Determine if staff’s ability to respond to school’s needs has improved and if it can be attributed to the provider’s services Determine if the provider has helped the staff plan for sustainability 59 • Determine if the provider has helped the school achieve academic gains External Provider Narrative (please limit narrative to a maximum of three pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): External Providers When selecting external providers for Cunningham SFE, we utilized a list of the five most critical characteristics of high-quality provider services published in September 2010 by Learning Point Associates, Guide to Working With External Providers—2nd Edition. Work with external providers should be: • Aligned with Established Goals—All plans and activities should be aligned with goals that were established by the school or district during the needs assessment and the school or district improvement processes. • Long Term—The provider’s services should be offered as part of a long-term strategy for improved student learning. • Customized—The provider should be prepared to tailor its approach to the school or district’s unique circumstances and needs. It should have a viable plan to get buy-in from key stakeholders. • Research Based—The provider’s approach should be grounded in research and backed by evidence. To find out whether the provider’s approach is researched-based, these questions are critical: - Have you conducted a formal evaluation of your products or services through a randomized controlled trial study? - How are your strategies and methodologies rooted in research? - Do you have outcome data on the effectiveness of a) your products or services in schools or districts with demographics similar Waterloo? - May we contact those schools? • Capacity Building—The provider should have a plan for building capacity at the school or district levels and evidence that it has accomplished this goal in the past. When reviewing the needs of the building and the criteria for provider selection, we selected the services of 60 the following five providers: Linda Garlinghouse (The Main Thing, LLC), University of Northern Iowa Math Department, as wells as school improvement consultants from Iowa Department of Education and AEA 267. SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL PROVIDERS External Provider Qualifications, experience and documented evidence of success The Main Thing, LLC (Linda Garlinghouse, proprietor), Waterloo, IA Linda Garlinghouse is the founder/owner of The Main Thing. She has worked in education for 37 years as an educator, building administrator and central office administrator. Upon retirement, Ms. Garlinghouse started a consulting company to assist high need buildings/districts with school improvement efforts. Her areas of expertise include curriculum development, instructional delivery, observation and feedback, and rigorous monitoring/accountability. Describe how the external providers will develop equitable, transparent, and rigorous assistance with the implementation plan. Linda Garlinghouse has been involved in turn-around efforts in Waterloo for three years. We have used her as a consultant with all other SIG funded schools in Waterloo, including Lincoln, Carver, and Irving. Her assistance has resulted in significant increased achievement in reading and math in both cohort 1 schools, and is blazing a trail of improvement for our cohort 2 school. Her expertise has proven invaluable in our SIG reform efforts. To ensure equity and transparency, the District will engage in monitoring/update meetings with Linda monthly throughout the year. In addition, she will attend all monthly monitoring meetings and extended monitoring visits each semester. External provider role School improvement consultant and professional development provider External Provider University of Northern Iowa Math Department Vicki Oleson-Director, Center for Teaching and Learning Mathematics Qualifications, experience and documented evidence of success The Center for Teaching and Learning Mathematics (CTLM) was started in 2007 at the University of Northern Iowa to coordinate professional development projects and incubate vision in mathematics education. The CTLM is committed to improving education by seeking 61 to assist teachers, students, and families in making sense of mathematics at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college and beyond. The CTLM has a long-standing history of excellence in professional development and has provided us with implementation data to support the effectiveness of their work. They are experts in the area of inquiry math and Common Core for Mathematics. Describe how the external providers will develop equitable, transparent, and rigorous assistance with the implementation plan. We are seeking to continue our partnership with the Center for Teaching and learning Mathematics, University of Northern Iowa. During the past two years, Waterloo Schools has contracted with them to coach staff to excellence in math instruction. The percent of Waterloo students proficient in math in buildings where the CTLM was contracted increased 3-9%. External provider role Consultant and professional development provider External Provider AEA and Iowa DE staff School Improvement Consultants Qualifications, experience and documented evidence of success The Iowa Department of Education and AEA 267 works with school Describe how the external providers will develop equitable, transparent, and rigorous assistance with the implementation plan. Part of the technical assistance developed to support districts as they districts to provide oversight, supervision, and support. work to fully implement the Iowa Core Curriculum will include professional development for teachers to understand the important role of “assessment for learning” and improve assessment practices and inform instruction. As well as increase students’ access to useful information about their educational progress. External provider role Technical support (including PD) to manage the plan External Providers (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to providing 62 rationale for, and alignment with, the school’s needs, including identifying, screening, selecting, monitoring, and evaluating external providers: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not identified the rationale for, and alignment with the school’s needs, in engaging an external provider. 1 3 The LEA has generally described the rationale for, and alignment with the school’s needs, in engaging an external provider, but is inconsistent or weak and does not address all necessary actions. 1 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner its rationale, and alignment with the school’s needs, in engaging an external provider. All necessary actions are addressed. 1 Points d) Modify its practices or policies Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable its schools to implement the interventions fully and effectively: The LEA will need to reflect in its analysis of current status of the school, its students, staff, and programs and services, the process it used to review current practices and policies and the extent to which a practice or policy conflicts with or compromises effective and full engagement and implementation of the required elements and actions of the selected intervention model. If practices and policies are identified that conflict with or compromise the implementation of any required elements of the selected intervention model, then the LEA and school will need to specify the actions to be taken and the timeline for the actions. Examples of policy changes LEAs may adopt include: • Providing flexibility in hiring practices at the school site • Scheduling protected collaborative planning time • Changing the structuring of the high school to enhance student learning opportunities (such as small learning communities, dual-enrollment, and credit recovery programs) LEAs must include information regarding possible modification of MOUs and other processes that may need to be negotiated (with teacher unions) to ensure policies and practices can be modified. Description of practices and policies modification (please limit narrative to a maximum of two pages, doublespaced, no smaller than 12-point font): 63 Modifications of Policies and Practices Knowing that policies and practices need to align and support the goals and action steps in this grant, a committee consisting of central office staff and building staff discussed needed modifications in the areas of school, students, staff, programs and services. We focused on policies and practices that, with modification, will support the implementation of this school improvement grant. Changes in practice will be made at the building level, with input from building and district staff when needed. Our process for modifying policy is as follows: District leadership team members draft proposals and bring to the team for initial review Draft policies go to Policy Review Committee (which meets the first Thursday of each month). Committee is all inclusive of necessary stakeholders, including community members. Proposed polices go to the Board for first and second readings. For a full list of policies and practices that have been modified and/or are being considered for modification as we implement the SIG model, please see Appendix G. Modification of Policies and Practices (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to modification of policies and practices. Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not analyzed the current status of the school’s policies and practices. Modifications necessary for full implementation of the selected model have not been adopted. 1 3 The LEA has analyzed the current status of policies and practices and has made some changes in order to implement the chosen intervention model, but is 1 Points 64 inconsistent or weak and does not address all required actions. 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it has analyzed the current status of the school’s policies and practices and has made appropriate modifications necessary for full implementation of the selected model. A realistic timeline was included. 1 e. Sustainability of the reforms Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends. Each LEA will be required to delineate a plan for sustaining the reform undertaken in each school. Sustainability measures will be discussed during LEA monitoring visits throughout the course of the grant. This plan will need to address the following: • Commitment of other federal, state, and local resources to maintain the intervention model and its required elements • Mentoring and training actions for staff new to the school • Specific actions to assure that the hiring process for affected schools support the continuation of focus and action consistent with the intervention model and the associated actions • Specific strategic training aimed at refreshing, renewing, and updating staff knowledge about, and foundations of, the intervention model and its required elements, and the specified actions and expectations that promote and support the intervention model • Strategic actions that will be taken to maintain high levels of community and parent understanding and engagement with the school • Evaluation strategy that is aligned to desired outcomes and goals (both student and system), data rich with designated time and process for analyzing data, and includes a specific process for decision making and determining actions • Strategic actions that will allow for absence of positions that were previously funded by the SIG, and • Strategic actions to allow for continued extended learning opportunities (days, hours, interventions) Sustainability Narrative (please limit narrative to a maximum of two pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12point font): Sustainability The district’s strategic plan is in direct alignment with the initiatives outlined in this grant—increased proficiency in literacy, math, and positive student behavior; therefore, we are committed to implementation of the grant beyond the 3-year funding period. We have been involved in this work since the onset of our first 65 reform plan in the 2008-2009 school year. Because of our experiences with previous SIG funding we have the knowledge and capacity to continue the SIG efforts after this grant sunsets in spring 2017. As specified in section B2, SIG grant funding will be supplemented and aligned with other resources from Title I, Title II, Title III, Title VI, IDEA, Iowa Core, at risk allowable growth, early literacy funds, teacher leader and compensation grant, class-size reduction dollars, Teacher Quality and local general fund. These financial resources will continue, based on need, after the three-year period of the grant. Sustainability of staff added through SIG funding: As in past SIG grants, the district will engage a long range plan to sustain staff added through this SIG grant. With this grant, we are adding fewer designated staff than in past grants, and focusing more on using existing staff supports (lead teachers, building and district instruction coaches) to increase collaboration time. Nevertheless, we are committed to maintaining the math coach positions, either full-time or part time, as needed beyond the grant, most likely out of teacher leadership and compensation funding. Mentoring and training for new staff AND continued professional development: Intense work in professional development during the three years of funding will build the foundation for sustainable improvements. Each year, even beyond the grant, all new teachers will be assigned a mentor and will participate in Waterloo’s New Teacher Academy which is being implemented as a part of our Teacher Leadership and Compensation structure (TLC). Staff new to the building will initially engage in five additional days of PD (added to their contracts), during which we can front load knowledge, skills and expectations specific to Cunningham. Post-grant, the literacy coach, math coach, district level coaches, building leadership, and district administration will continue to monitor, coach, and provide feedback to all staff for improvement in the areas of reading, writing and math workshops and positive behavior supports, using Marzano’s observation protocol to identify gaps in “knowing” and “implementing with fidelity” the high yield strategies. During the school year, the staff will continue to engage in professional development one hour each Wednesday, one full day in September, and one full day in February, aligned with the Iowa 66 Professional Development Model. Staff will track the implementation of reading and math strategies in data team (PLC) meetings. Although additional hours/days for professional development will sunset when the grant ends, the district will use other funding streams (TQ, TLC, general) to ensure annual professional development include multiple ongoing opportunities to rejuvenate staff and keep them current in skills and knowledge necessary to accomplish these SIG interventions. Hiring process supports continued reform efforts: Postings for new hires will incorporate the specific criteria included in the Cunningham Teacher Expectations (see Appendix H). In addition, the district is intensifying its efforts to monitor instruction and hold teachers accountable to the expectations laid out in the grant. The training and coaching provided to administrators on how to support instruction and monitor for implementation will ensure the grant objectives are sustained. Sustaining community and parent understanding and engagement: During the needs assessment, family and community engagement was noted as an area of growth. In addition to frequent communication about reform plans and progress, our budget includes monthly family engagement nights. Funding for these events will be provided by our Waterloo Schools Foundation post grant—they have already committed their support. Our district strategic plan includes extensive work in parent involvement and community engagement and identifies this area as high priority. The district provides three full-time employees whose focus is on ways to serve/involve parents and partner with businesses. These resources will continue at Cunningham at the completion of the grant. Continued evaluation of student/system outcomes and goals: Evaluation will be done at the building and district level through a formal process utilized in the district for program evaluation. Student achievement results (Iowa Assessment, Skills Iowa, DRA2) will be the primary indicator of success. 67 Sustain the Reforms After the Funding Period Ends (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to sustainability: Rubric Value (4) Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not delineated a realistic plan for sustaining the reform. 1 3 The LEA has delineated a plan for sustaining the reform and addressed some of the suggested sustainability actions. 1 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it has delineated a plan for sustaining the reform. A comprehensive and appropriate listing of sustainability actions was included. 1 Points Timelines for pre-implementation and implementation The LEA must include a timeline delineating the steps it will take to implement the selected intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school, or each priority school, identified in the LEA’s application. The Iowa Department of Education (IDE) will allow LEA applicants to request SIG funding for preimplementation activities in the spring and/or summer prior to full implementation for the 2014-2015 school year for the following: Family and Community Engagement: Hold community meetings to review school performance, discuss the school intervention model to be implemented, and develop school improvement plans in line with the intervention model selected; survey students, parents, and community members to gauge needs of students, families, and the community; communicate with parents and the community about school status, improvement plans, choice options, and local service providers for health, nutrition, or social services through press releases, newsletters, newspaper announcements, parent outreach coordinators, hotlines, and direct mail; assist families in transitioning to new schools if their current school is implementing the closure model by providing counseling or holding meetings specifically regarding their choices; or hold open houses or orientation activities specifically for students attending a new school if their prior school is implementing the closure model. Rigorous Review of External Providers: Conduct the required rigorous review process to select a charter school operator, a CMO, or an EMO and contract with that entity; or properly recruit, screen, and select any external providers that may be necessary to assist in planning for the implementation of an intervention model. Staffing: Recruit and hire the incoming principal, leadership team, instructional staff, and administrative support; or evaluate the strengths and areas of need of current staff. Instructional Programs: Provide remediation and enrichment to students in schools that will implement an intervention model at the start of the 2014-2015 school year through programs with evidence of raising achievement; identify and/or purchase instructional materials that are research-based, aligned with State academic standards, and have data-based evidence of raising student achievement; or compensate staff for instructional planning, such as examining student data, developing a curriculum that is aligned to State 68 standards and aligned vertically from one grade level to another, collaborating within and across disciplines, and devising student assessments. Professional Development and Support: Train staff on the implementation of new or revised instructional programs and policies that are aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional plan and the school’s intervention model; provide structured common planning time, mentoring, consultation with outside experts, and observations of classroom practice, that are aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional plan and the school’s intervention model; or train staff on the new evaluation system and locally adopted competencies. Preparation for accountability Measures: Develop and pilot a data system for use in SIG-funded schools; analyze data on leading baseline indicators; or develop and adopt interim assessments for use in SIG-funded schools. Participation in the RtI/MTSS phase I or II implementation will satisfy this requirement. LEA applicants for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) must provide a breakdown of each preimplementation activity and associated cost as part of the LEA application process. Pre-implementation activities will be reviewed by the SEA to insure that activities are necessary to allow the applicant to fully implement the selected intervention model in the Fall of 2014. Pre-implementation activities are not limited to the suggested activities listed above, but the LEA must be able to provide justification for any preimplementation expenditure as part of the school budget narrative. The LEA will include a detailed and realistic timeline demonstrating the Tier I and Tier II school has the ability to get the basic elements of its selected intervention in place and operating by the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year: Pre-implementation plans (add rows as necessary): Task Individual(s) Responsible Evaluation Metric Timeline for Completion Start date What major tasks must be Who will be responsible completed in order to for seeing that the task is successfully implement completed? the model? How will the LEA judge that a task has been satisfactorily completed? Complete fireside chats with existing staff, determining who will remain at Cunningham and who will seek a transfer Communicate the final grant and ensure understanding of the design components and impact on teacher contract to all involved stakeholders Create a quick reference guide for SIG grant (including all parts) Hire math coach using Smith, Saddler A quality, committed staff is secured (high skill, high will) May 2014 June 2014 Lindaman Gain perception feedback from staff and WEA May 2014 June 2014 Lindaman Track/review dates when document was shared Contract offered June 2014 June 2014 District office, admin May 2014 End date (All tasks must be completed by August 2017) June 1, 69 TLC selection process Hire other staff, as needed (resulting from retirements/resignations) Set budget account codes Building principal, Smith (HR) Contract(s) offered Coughlin (CFO) Review line item budget categories 2014 June 2015 May 2014 As soon as we find out we are a grant recipient. June 2015 The LEA will include a realistic timeline demonstrating three-year implementation plans (add rows as necessary): Task Individual(s) Responsible Who will be responsible for seeing that the task is completed? Evaluation Metric How will the LEA judge that a task has been satisfactorily completed? Start date Review expectations with principal Share quick reference sheet with all building and relevant district staff Communicate SIG grant to Cunningham parents and community Hold New Teacher Academy for any new teachers at Cunningham as per TLC guidelines (which support SIG) Deliver PD on literacy strategies and math inquiry model Monitor data as specified (monthly, quarterly, annually) Connolly Minutes are documented, plan is created Track/review dates when document was shared July 2014 Sept 2017 McNulty and team, Bldg leadership team Review evaluations from Cunningham staff on weekly/monthly PD sessions Minutes are documented, progress is documented as per planned in this grant Plan for parent involvement events and communicate dates to parents for 2014-15 Saddler and Bldg Leadership team Events are held. Parent feedback is positive. What major tasks must be completed in order to successfully implement the model? Lindaman Principal and team Smith/Ed Services Ed Services, Saddler and team Review document and seek feedback from PTO and parents during conferences Review schedule and feedback after Academy from new teachers Timeline for Completion End date (All tasks must be completed by August 2017) Aug 2014 Bi-annually through Spring 2017 Sept Biannually 2014 through Spring 2017 July 28, August 1, 2014 2014 [then in July 2015, and July 2016) Aug 2014 Ongoing through June 2017 Aug 2014 Ongoing through June 2017 Aug 2014 June 2017 70 Purchase student support materials including items for classroom libraries Review PBIS standards and monitor Saddler, lit coach, Invoices are reviewed and media specialist items are in use Aug 2014 Nov 2017 Saddler/Fisher Aug 2014 Ongoing through June 2017 Monitor feedback on walkthroughs (iObservation), lesson plans, data teams Connolly and Bldg Leadership Team Communicate evaluation criteria to staff Saddler Review agenda, review behavior referral data and compare to baseline as shown in needs assessment section Quantity of feedback (on walk-throughs, lessons plans, data teams) meets district guidelines Review agenda Prepare for FLASH— select/invite student, plan lessons Saddler, Teachers/Support staff, with help from clerical Track student attendance data and student progress on MTSS data discussed during data teams Deliver PD on literacy strategies and math inquiry model Monitor data as specified (monthly, quarterly, annually) Ed Services, Saddler and team Review evaluations from Cunningham staff on weekly/monthly PD sessions Minutes are documented, progress is documented as per planned in this grant Monitor budget expenditures and account balance McNulty and Coughlin (CFO) Line item budget will be reviewed and documentation of on-track spending is record October 2014 Conduct implementation studies as per the building PD plan (to monitor fidelity of implementation and determine PD needs) Prepare a summative report of progress during year 1 Building and district leadership team Review data during monthly monitoring meetings and document conversations and next steps Sept 2014 District cabinet and building admin Development appropriate District cabinet Year 2 goals and building admin Prepare a summative report District cabinet of progress during year 2 and building admin Document is reviewed, discussion is documented June 2015 Review goals July 2015 July 2015 Document is reviewed, discussion is documented June 2016 Development appropriate Year 3 goals Review goals July 2016 July 2016 McNulty and team, Bldg leadership team District cabinet and building admin Sept 2014 Monthly through June 2017 Sept 2014 By Sept 15, 2014, 2015, 2016 Before By onset of first Round 3, by session April 29, 2015 on Sept [and April 15, 2014 2016 and April 2017] Aug 2014 Ongoing through June 2017 Aug 2014 Ongoing through June 2017 Every other month through June 2015 June 2017 August 2015 August 2016 71 Prepare final SIG reports and share with all stakeholders District leadership (Ed Services, chair) Review this timeline for any missing tasks District cabinet and building admin We will share with staff and Iowa DE staff—we hope to publish our lessons learned nationally. Timeline is reviewed and items are added or deleted as appropriate May 2017 August 2017 June 2015 Dec 2016 Timelines (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to preimplementation and implementation timelines delineating the steps it will take to implement the selected intervention: Rubric Value (5) Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not provided an adequate preimplementation and implementation timeline delineating the steps it will take in its implementation of the chosen intervention model. 1 3 The LEA has provided pre-implementation and implementation timelines, but is inconsistent or weak and does not address all necessary tasks. 1 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it has the capacity to fully and effectively implement the intervention model it has chosen and addresses all necessary tasks. 1 Points Monitoring The LEA must describe how it will monitor each Tier I and Tier II school, or each priority school, that receives school improvement funds including by• Establishing annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics; and, • Measuring progress on the leading indicators as defined in the final requirements 72 Each LEA submitting an application with Tier I and Tier II schools will need to identify the annual goals for reading (or English-Language Arts [ELA]) and math. Each goal will need to clearly identify the metric that will be used to determine progress and the measure or measures that will be used to determine progress. SIG Annual goals: English-Language Arts Goal By May of 2015, Cunningham will increase by 8% the percent of proficient FAY students in grades 3, 4, and 5 on the Reading Comprehension portion of the Iowa Assessments as measured by NSS proficiency cut scores and growth using the Iowa Growth Model scores. [This is AYP data.] Metric used to determine progress Iowa Assessment scores (including proficiency and growth model students) for FAY students in grades 3, 4, 5 combined Math Goal By May of 2015, Cunningham will increase by 8% the percent of proficient FAY students in grades 3, 4, and 5 on the Math portion of the Iowa Assessments as measured by NSS proficiency cut scores and growth using the Iowa Growth Model scores. [This is AYP data.] Metric used to determine progress Iowa Assessment scores (including proficiency and growth model students) for FAY students in grades 3, 4, 5 combined. Each LEA submitting an application with Tier I and Tier II schools will need to identify how it will monitor the following SIG leading indicators and SIG achievement indicators: SIG Leading Indicators: Indicator How will this indicator be monitored? (…and how often will this indicator be monitored?) Number of minutes within the school year Student participation rate on State assessments in reading/language arts, by Technology department will pull data off of Infinite Campus schedule and provide to Ed Services. Classify as: • Minutes of instruction • Minutes of additional instruction added through SIG grant • Hours of additional professional development/collaboration time added through SIG grant Frequency: Quarterly Ed Services (associate supt) tracks participation rates on Iowa Assessments, keeping names of non-participants and reason why they didn’t participate. Frequency: Annually each spring 73 student subgroup Ed Services (associate supt) tracks participation rates on Iowa Assessments, Student participation rate keeping names of non-participants and reason why they didn’t participate. on State assessments in math, by student subgroup Frequency: Annually each spring Not applicable. Dropout rate Student Attendance Rate Pull data from Infinite Campus via Tableau report. Note: this data is live and available on our dashboard by building, grade, subgroup, day of the week, etc. Frequency: Quarterly Number and percentage of Not applicable. students completing advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early college high schools, or dual enrollment classes Discipline incidences As per our district PBIS guidelines, we will track the % of students in Tier 3 (6+ major referrals), Tier 2 (2-5 major referrals) and Tier 1 (0-1 major referrals). We want to ensure that at least 80% of students have 0 or 1 referral within the duration of the school year. We will also monitor the number of students in Tier 2 (2-5 major referrals) and Tier 3 (6+ major referrals) Frequency: Monitor quarterly Truants We will track truancy (unexcused absences) via Infinite Campus using our attendance dashboard. Frequency: Quarterly Distribution of teachers by performance level on LEA’s teacher evaluation system During quarterly conversations between district and building administration, we will track the number of teachers who are meeting all standards OR on track to meet all eight Iowa Teaching Standards. Final numbers will be available and analyzed by March 25 when evaluations are due to HR dept. Also, building/district leadership, with the help of our technical assistance teams from AEA and DE, will track numbers of students in the four quadrants of the Skill/Will matrix. Frequency: Quarterly Teacher attendance rate We will track via Alio Cunningham’s teacher attendance data. We will report/analyze numbers of total absences with and without Professional Development absences. 74 Frequency: Monthly SIG achievement indicators: Indicator AYP status How will this indicator be monitored? We will analyze and discuss AYP status using the AYP display page that comes after certifying AYP in June. Because of its proven correlation to Iowa Assessments, we will track monthly benchmark data as per our administrative performance pay metric—looking at percent of students passing tests and comparing to correlational data. Which AYP targets the school met and missed School improvement status Frequency: Literacy: begin after 3 data points—after Nov benchmark Math: begin after mid-year (January) benchmark Using the AYP display charts that come after certifying AYP in June, we will track performance of benchmark data by subgroup using the process described above, predicting performance and adjusting using MTSS (during Core and FLASH) Frequency: Literacy: begin after 3 data points—after Nov benchmark Math: begin after mid-year (January) benchmark Each month, we will track the leading indicator data as per Iowa’s 30-day monitoring meetings. This data will be discussed with the group and adjustments made. Frequency: Monthly Percentage of students at or above each proficiency level on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics (e.g., Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and by student subgroup We will analyze and discuss the % of students in below, proficient, and advanced performance levels for reading and math by grade, all student and subgroup. The ed services dept provides this data to all building leadership teams in the fall. Then, we utilize monthly benchmark data to ensure proficient students are on track to stay proficient…and less than proficient students are showing accelerated growth. Average scale scores on State assessments in reading/language arts and Ed Services provides this data from Iowa Assessment CD to each building leadership team. The basefile includes Raw, NPR, NSS, and performance level scores for vocab, literacy, math, science. We also utilize Iowa Testing Programs Frequency: Quarterly 75 in mathematics, by grade, for the “all students” group, for each achievement quartile, and for each subgroup Expected Growth charts based on norming done on Form E and Form F. We track students who made typical growth in comparison to students who did not. We have begun to track this annually by teacher, looking for patterns in teachers whose students meet annual growth and those who don’t. Percentage of limited English proficient students who attain EL proficiency On Infinite Campus via Tableau, we track the number of students who perform at each level (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) on the I-ELDA. Graduation rate Not applicable. College enrollment rates Not applicable. Frequency: Annually Frequency: Annually Narrative explaining how LEA will monitor yearly progress on achievement goals and SIG leading and achievement indicators (please limit narrative to a maximum of two pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Monitoring SIG Leading and Achievement Indicators Since the inception of our vision and strategic plan in 2009, Waterloo has been a pacesetter in measuring implementation and effectiveness. Prior to our current measurement efforts, Waterloo Schools arguably, like most other school districts in Iowa, lacked discipline in monitoring implementation and impact of our work beyond simplistic and superficial data. Waterloo has greatly improved the availability of data and our ability to drill down at the building, grade and classroom level using live data. Through Tableau reports (function of Infinite Campus) and our district dashboard, most data from the leading indicators above is available live (current to the day—updated nightly). As evidence of the value Waterloo places on setting goals and measuring them and responding with action steps, one should note that Waterloo is one of the only districts (if not the only) that has implemented performance pay at the superintendent, cabinet and administrator level. In 2012-13, Waterloo implemented this Pay-for-Performance (PFP) plan for our superintendent, one that rewards achievement of goals in student achievement, human assets, climate for learning, community engagement, and fiscal/facility operations. Two years later the PFP plan has been extended to other administrators in the district. It is critical for grant 76 readers to note that 15 of the 18 indicators above are already being monitored as a part of our pay for performance plan. Our plan for monitoring our SIG plan, including the 10 leading and eight achievement indicators above, is to review all data points monthly, quarterly or annually, as appropriate. [Again, all data is readily available on the dashboard, which greatly simplifies the process.] As a result of monitoring the pay-for-performance system already in place, we have established an excellent process for analyzing data. To monitor Cunningham’s SIG plan, all relevant stakeholders will be at the table, including the SIG leadership team (administration, teachers, and parents) and district leaders. During our monitoring meetings, we ask two questions about each data point, and then we document quantitative and qualitative data concerning each point. Two questions drive our work: a) What evidence do we have that we are on track to meet our goal? b) What actions have we taken to influence the outcomes? In question “b” above, we document the actions as cause data (defined as frequency and fidelity of implementation) and then we monitor the outcome so we can replicate what is working and end what isn’t. The following visual from Doug Reeves’ research guides our discussions. 77 Adjustments to our plan: Again, implementation and impact data will be monitored monthly, quarterly, biannually and annually (as specified) and reviewed by Cunningham’s SIG leadership team and district administrators. Based on data, adjustments will be made as needed to: our SIG plan design our SIG budget district and building professional development services from our external providers policies, procedures, and practices Monitoring (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to how it will monitor yearly progress on achievement goals and SIG leading and achievement indicators: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not provided an adequate description of how it will monitor yearly progress on achievement goals and SIG leading and achievement indicators. 1 3 The LEA has provided a description of how it will monitor yearly progress on achievement goals and SIG leading and achievement indicators, but is inconsistent or weak. 1 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it will adequately monitor yearly progress on achievement goals and SIG leading and achievement indicators. 1 Points In addition to the LEA monitoring practices described above, the LEA and building must also commit to participating in the following State-facilitated monitoring activities: 30 Day Meetings IDE will meet on a monthly basis with LEA/district-level staff and school principals responsible for the intervention and improvement activities, in order to provide technical assistance and monitor progress. These 78 monthly 30-day building meetings will focus on classroom level data regarding the following indicators, as appropriate for each school. All progress data must be evidence-based and quantitative: Attendance (student and teacher) Examples could include: • Student attendance data • Teacher attendance systems • Classroom attendance data Climate/Behavior (climate data should include data relevant to teachers and students) Examples could include: • Teacher skill/will • Climate/Culture Survey Data • Defined Instructional Minutes Matrix • Data on the amount of actual learning time that takes place during instructional/extended learning time (for example, how many times does the PA system interrupt classroom work time, or early release time for extra-curricular activities) • Attendance of teachers at district-sponsored professional development • PBIS data • Referral Data • Walk-Through Data on teacher behavior Purpose/Focus/Standard (Data to be collected through administrative/instructional coach observations, PLCs, Lesson plans, classroom observations during SIG monitoring visits) • Learning – students • Instruction – teachers Engagement (Data to be collected through administrative/coach observations, peer-to-peer observations, classroom observations during SIG monitoring visits) • Learning – students • Instruction - teacher Academics (Screening, formative and summative data at the classroom/teacher level) – these data should connect to achieving the SIG academic goals, reading and math, set by each school. Examples could include: • Common formative assessments given at a grade/department level • District-wide benchmarking assessments • Common summative assessments given by grade/department level • Response to Intervention (RtI) data including minutes from grade-/department-level data team meetings During these SIG 30-day meetings, a focus will be kept on the SIG academic goals with data at the student and teacher level. “To promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students.” Monitoring Visits (three times per year) Members of the SIG Monitoring Team (members will include IDE consultants, LEA members, and may include AEA consultants) will be assigned to each LEA receiving School Improvement Grant funds to conduct onsite visits three times a year to each building. The purpose of the onsite visit will be to document LEA and school progress in implementing the intervention model and associated actions according to the established timeline and whether any deficiencies exist in LEA and school commitment and support. The outcome of an onsite visit will be the submission of a Technical Assistance Report to the Title I administrative consultant who will review the findings and determine whether any follow up actions need to be taken. All Required SIG activities will be monitored, as required by intervention model chosen: 79 • • • • • • • • • Use rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals. Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so. Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies. Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a transformation school. Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards. Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students. Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased learning time. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement. Give the school sufficient operational flexibility to implement a fully comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates School Improvement Symposia (three times per year) Three times during each school year, leaders from all Iowa’s SIG schools, district SIG leaders, members of Iowa’s SINA 4+ restructuring schools, Iowa Support Team members, and Iowa Department of Education consultant will meet for collaborative sessions. The purpose of these symposia is to infuse a sense of urgency, generate enthusiasm, share school improvement research and research-based activities, provide professional development, question each other, support each other, and work together to benefit every student in the state of Iowa. Assurance The LEA assures that a district-level representative and building principal will actively participate in Statefacilitated, monthly 30-day monitoring meetings; three full-day monitoring visits; and three School Improvement Symposia - during each year of implementation. (6) For each Tier III school the LEA commits to serve, the LEA must identify the services the school will receive or the activities the school will implement. LEAs serving a Tier III school must identify the services the school will receive or the activities the school will implement. These actions, particularly regarding monitoring, should include all monitoring activities required of a Tier I or Tier II school. (7) The LEA must describe the goals it has established (subject to approval by the SEA) in order to hold accountable its Tier III schools that receive school improvement funds. LEAs serving a Tier III school must identify the goals the school will establish for reading and math. Goal 80 monitoring requirements of the State and LEA, as required for Tier I and Tier II schools, will apply to Tier III schools. (8) As appropriate, the LEA must consult with relevant stakeholders regarding the LEA’s application and implementation of school improvement models in its Tier I and Tier II schools or in its priority schools, as applicable. Consultation with Relevant Stakeholders Describe the process by which the LEA consulted with relevant stakeholders regarding the LEA’s application and the LEA’s proposed implementation of school improvement models in its Tier I and Tier II schools. Include a list of stakeholders’ names, their titles, and dates of meetings (please limit narrative to a maximum of two pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): Consultation with Relevant Stakeholders The SIG leadership team, led by the associate superintendent for educational services, collaborated with all stakeholders who could provide important input into this grant application and the proposed design. We began with a comprehensive needs assessment campaign that consisted of a series of weekly face-to-face discussion meetings with staff and parents, followed-up by staff surveys and further interviews. All data from face-to-face information was documented by two different interviewers in minutes templates, which were later combined resulting in a comprehensive data set. Simultaneously, building and district staff met together to work through the needs assessment questions and later to process the results and brainstorm/research options. A full review of existing data, including screening, diagnostic, formative and summative was reviewed. District administrators (superintendent and associated superintendents) met with WEA three times to reach agreement on the reform model (transformational) and to process prospective modifications to the teacher bargaining unit. In late April, a survey was sent to parents to gain information about increased learning time options. Specific input and feedback was gathered from our stakeholders in the following areas: Area of input Needs assessment Stakeholder(s) Method of communication Parents Face-to-face interviews/meetings, survey about summer school, 81 previous parent survey from spring 2013 Teachers Face-to-face interviews/meetings, implementation studies data, survey on levels of instructional implementation, climate, leadership support Support Staff Building Administration District Administration Parent Face-to-face interviews/meetings Face-to-face conversations Planning meetings Face-to-face interviews/meetings, survey about summer school Teachers Face-to-face meetings, conversations with building leadership, staff survey Building Administration Face-to-face interviews and planning meetings Design and Goals Other SIG principals in our district (Carver, Lincoln, Irving) District Administration Face-to-face interviews Face-to-face planning meetings, document review Waterloo Education Association Planning meetings, individual conversations Timeline Budget Teachers Building Administration District Administration Teachers Face-to-face meetings Face-to-face meetings, email 82 conversations, conversations with principal Building Administration District Administration Waterloo Education Association Face-to-face meetings, email conversations In working through the application and design, the district consulted with the following stakeholders. Name Craig Saddler Title Building Principal Stakeholder Group Administration Neldrekka Whitaker Lead Teacher Building Leadership Ryan Christopher Literacy Coach Building Leadership Comfort AkwajiAnderson Beverly Rockett Maneca Seenster Robert Luloff Kristen Byers Math Coach Building Leadership Parent Parent Parent Teacher Deb Pfaltzgraf Teacher Becky Mohorne Teacher Dr. Gary Norris Superintendent Parent Parent Parent Waterloo Education Association-President Waterloo Education Association-President Elect Waterloo Education Association-Past President Administrator Jane Lindaman Dr. Bev Smith Associate Supt for Ed Administration Services (Superintendent-Elect) Associate Supt-HR Administrator Michael Coughlin CFO Administrator Linda Garlinghouse Retired Administrator Community Michelle Van Winkle Brad Cross Kathy Vogel Kindergarten Teacher PE Teacher 3rd Grade Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Date of Meeting--2014 April 1, 3, 10, 17, May 2, 5 April 1, 3, 10, 17, May 2, 5 April 1, 3, 10, 17, May 2, 5 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 May 6 March 11, April 15, May 10 March 11, April 15, May 10 March 11, April 15, May 10 March 10, 31, April 7, 21, 28, May 5, 12 March 10, 31, April 3, 7, 10, 17, 21, 28, May 5, 12 March 10, 31, April 7, 21, 28, May 5, 12 March 10, 31, April 7, 21, 28, May 5, 12 March 10, 31, April 3, 7, 10, 17, 21, 28, May 5, 12 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 83 Kimberly Archie Mary Peterson Megan Ehlen Jessica Sidler Vicki Oleson Brian Townsend Davette Myles Special Ed Teacher Title One Teacher 5th Grade Teacher PK Teacher University Professor University Professor Special Needs Para Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Expert Consultant Expert Consultant Staff April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 April 10, 17 April 3, 10, 17 Stakeholder Consultation (5 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect its consultation with relevant stakeholders: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The LEA has not provided an adequate description of how it consulted with relevant stakeholders in preparing the application and proposed implementation of the school improvement model. A listing of stakeholder’s names, their titles, and dates of meetings was incomplete or missing. 1 3 The LEA has provided a description of how it consulted with relevant stakeholders in preparing the application and proposed implementation of the school improvement model. An incomplete or weak listing of stakeholder’s names, their titles, and dates of meetings was included. 1 5 The LEA has demonstrated in a strong and convincing manner that it consulted with relevant stakeholders in preparing the application and proposed implementation of the school improvement model. A complete listing of stakeholder’s names, their titles, and dates of meetings was included. 1 Points 84 C. BUDGET: An LEA must include a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA will use each year in each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school, or each priority school, it commits to serve. The LEA must provide a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA will use each year to— a) Implement the selected model in each Tier I and Tier II school, or priority school, it commits to serve; b) Conduct LEA-level activities designed to support implementation of the selected school intervention models in the LEA’s Tier I and Tier II schools or priority schools; and c) Support school improvement activities, at the school or LEA level, for each Tier III school identified in the LEA’s application. Note: An LEA’s budget should cover three years of full implementation and be of sufficient size and scope to implement the selected school intervention model in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits to serve. Any funding for activities during the pre-implementation period must be included in the first year of the LEA’s three-year budget plan. An LEA’s budget for each year may not exceed the number of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools, or the number of priority schools, it commits to serve multiplied by $2,000,000 (not to exceed $6,000,000 per school over three years). The LEA will describe their needs to implement the selected intervention model(s). The LEA budget should take into account the following: • The number of Tier I and Tier II schools the LEA commits to serve and the intervention model (turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) selected for each school • The budget request for each Tier I and Tier II school must be of sufficient size and scope to support full and effective implementation of the selected intervention over a period of three years • A separate budget must be submitted for each school for each year of the three year grant period • The SIG portion of school closure costs may be lower than the amount required for the other models and will be granted for only one year • The LEA may request funding for LEA-level activities that will support the implementation of school intervention models in Tier I and Tier II schools • Budget must include necessary personnel and activities to implement the chosen model of intervention • Budget includes LEA activities necessary to monitor building implementation and provide technical assistance • Budget items are reasonable and necessary • Budget covers allowable timeline • Budget includes all required elements of the intervention model • Plan includes demonstrations of capacity building and long-term sustainability Budget Narrative (please limit narrative to a maximum of three pages, double-spaced, no smaller than 12-point font): 85 Development of the Budget We carefully calculated a budget linked to accomplishing the Cunningham SIG goals in this plan. All of our goals focus on increasing student achievement through improved teaching and engaged learning; consequently, our budget is 100% aligned to that mission. We are proud to present this budget that reflects months of collaboration. We deemed it critical to reach consensus before submission of the grant, so all could support and champion the plan/budget when we receive it. This was no small feat for our large district; but, we were thrilled with our collegial, studentcentered conversations. After drafting the plan, district administrators and Waterloo Education Association representatives came to the table on numerous lengthy occasions to build consensus about how the plan impacted our master contract agreement. Today, we are happy to submit this budget with full support from all parties. BUDGET NARRATIVE 8 additional days on teacher contracts—salary and benefits [Budget: $137,534] Teachers will work 8 additional days on their 2014-15 contract, with 7 of those days being with students and 1 of those contract days being reserved for professional development. The extra day of professional development can be done in various segments throughout the year, perhaps by extending Wednesdays and working on a Saturday morning. We are pursuing other dollars through Iowa Core and Teacher Quality and plan to add in-kind money to this work to allow sufficient opportunities for teachers to collaborate. 140 extended days—salary and benefits (extends 7.5 day to an 8.0 day) [Budget: $137,534] Teachers will work 140 extended days throughout the year by extending their usual 7.5 hour work day to an 8.0 days—80 extended days will be used to increase student leaning time and 40 will be used to extend professional development/collaboration time on Wednesdays. This SIG grant will pay for 120 of the 86 extended days with 20 days being paid with local general budget dollars. Math Coach—salary and benefits [Budget: $80,440] A math coach will be added to support the Transformation Model implementation through classroom coaching, observation, modeling, data analysis and delivery of professional development. External providers [Budget: $10,000] Honorarium and expenses for professional development providers to assist in delivery of content aligned to reading and math strategies. [Linda Garlinghouse, Center for Teaching and Learning Mathematics, AEA 267, Iowa Department of Education] Instructional Materials [Budget: $13,000] Funding will provide resource materials, software and supplemental materials that will provide academic support for students at their instructional levels or professional development support for staff. Parent Involvement [Budget: $10,000] As we do at other SIG buildings, we plan to purchase materials, supplies and incentives for parent involvement to support the academic achievement of students. Take home activities, support guides and online resources will be provided. This component of past reform efforts has been wildly successful, with 300500 attendees at various events. Incentive Pay—Salary and Benefits [Budget: $60,332] As at past SIG buildings, we plan to award up to 30 hours of extra per diem pay for eligible recipients (certified staff; administrators; clerical support staff, pro-rated for part-time staff). Award amount based on 87 30 hours of pay at the average hourly earnings of the employee group. Summer School [Budget: $25,000] We are using this line item to offset the cost of two weeks of full-day summer school. The district will provide in-kind money to offset the total $36,000 cost. Admin Costs [Budget: $9,172] Related administrative costs for salary and benefits. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT (SIG) BUDGET Grant Period 2014-2015 through 2016-2017 Title I Iowa Department of Education Grimes State Office Building 400 E 14th Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0146 Applicants must use the budget provided with the application materials. The budget must align with the actions described in the application. School District Name: Waterloo Schools School Building Name: Cunningham School for Excellence Year 1 Budget Year 2 Budget Year 3 Budget 3-Year Total $ $ $ $ Grant Amount PreImplementation Year 1 - Full Implementation (expenses occurring spring/summer 2014) (expenses occurring during first year) 88 Personnel Expenses (expenses for salary and benefits) $0 $304,948 $317,145 $329,831 $951,924 $0 $50,560 $52,582 $54,686 $157,828 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 $24,000 Salary Benefits (FICA, IPERS, insurance) Expenses (mileage, meals, lodging) Professional Services (expenses for external providers) $0 Honorarium $8,000 Expenses (mileage, $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 $0 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $39,000 meals, lodging) Instructional Materials/Supplies Other Expenses (must specify expenses) Specify Other Expense: Incentive Pay (30 hours per staff member) $0 $60,332 $62,745 $65,255 $188,332 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Specify Other Expense: Parent Involvement/Family Nights Specify Other Expense: Summer School Administrative Costs (indirect cost maximum based on indirect cost rate multiplied by salary and benefit expense) Allowable Indirect Cost Rate $0 $9,172 $9,539 $9,920 $28,631 Budget Total $0 $483,012 $500,011 $517,692 $1,500,715 89 Budget (10 points maximum possible) The following framework will be used by the SEA to evaluate the LEA application with respect to the budget: Rubric Value Descriptor Weighting 1 The applicant does not adequately describe how funds will be distributed or support school improvement activities. The budget is incomplete. 2 3 The description of funding distribution and the funding of some activities is included. Distribution and utilization is not clear. The budget includes most needs to implement the selected intervention model. 2 5 The applicant has clearly described how funds will be distributed, will support school improvement activities, and will be utilized for implementation and sustainability of the intervention model. The budget includes all needs to implement the selected intervention model. 2 Points Example: LEA XX BUDGET Year 1 Budget Year 2 Budget Year 3 Budget Three-Year Total Pre-implementation Year 1 - Full Implementation Tier I ES #1 $257,000 $1,156,000 $1,325,000 $1,200,000 $3,938,000 Tier I ES #2 $125,500 $890,500 $846,500 $795,000 $2,657,500 Tier I MS #1 $304,250 $1,295,750 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $4,800,000 Tier II HS #1 $530,000 $1,470,000 $1,960,000 $1,775,000 $5,735,000 LEA-level Activities $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $750,000 Total Budget $6,279,000 $5,981,500 $5,620,000 $17,880,500 D. ASSURANCES: An LEA must include the following assurances in its application for a School Improvement Grant. By submitting this application, the LEA assures that it will (check each box): Use its School Improvement Grant to implement fully and effectively an intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school, or each priority school, that the LEA commits to serve consistent with the final requirements Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts 90 and mathematics and measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of the final requirements in order to monitor each Tier I and Tier II school, or priority school, that it serves with school improvement funds, and establish goals (approved by the SEA) to hold accountable its Tier III schools that receive school improvement funds If it implements a restart model in a Tier I or Tier II school, or priority school, include in its contract or agreement terms and provisions to hold the charter operator, charter management organization, or education management organization accountable for complying with the final requirements Monitor and evaluate the actions a school has taken, as outlined in the approved SIG application, to recruit, select and provide oversight to external providers to ensure their quality The LEA assures it will monitor and evaluate the actions schools have taken, as outlined in the approved SIG application, to sustain the reforms after the funding period ends and that it will provide technical assistance to schools on how they can sustain progress in the absence of SIG funding Report to the SEA the school-level data required under section III of the final requirements E. WAIVERS: If the SEA has requested any waivers of requirements applicable to the LEA’s School Improvement Grant, an LEA must indicate which of those waivers it intends to implement. The LEA must check each waiver that the LEA will implement. If the LEA does not intend to implement the waiver with respect to each applicable school, the LEA must indicate for which schools it will implement the waiver. “Starting over” in the school improvement timeline for Tier I and Tier II Title I participating schools implementing a turnaround or restart model. Implementing a school-wide program in a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty eligibility threshold. 91 APPENDIX A—Teacher Surveys Perceptions of Cunningham’s Teachers —April 2014 Q2 Math: The Iowa Core Standards are implemented consistently at my grade level. Q3 Math: The grade level standards are implemented consistently across the building. 0, 0% 0, 0% 5, 18% Not Sure 4, 14% Disagree 16, 57% 7, 25% Agree 6, 22% Q4 Math: I receive feedback on implementation of the Iowa Core. 0, 0% Not Sure 20, 72% Agree No Response 0, 0% 2, 7% 6, 21% Disagree 18, 64% No Response Q1 Math: I understand the standards of the Iowa Core at my grade level. Not Sure 4, 14% 7, 25% Not Sure Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Response Q5 Math: I receive regular feedback on my instruction. 0, 0% 1, 4% 17, 61% No Response Q1 Reading: I understand the standards of the Iowa Core at my grade level. 0, 0% 4, 12% Not Sure 9, 32% Disagree 18, 64% Agree No Response Not Sure 6, 18% 23, 70% Disagree Agree No Response 92 Q2 Reading: The Iowa Core Standards are implemented consistently at my grade level. Q3 Reading: The grade level standards are implemented consistently across the building. 0, 0% 0, 0% 10, 30% 14, 43% Not Sure Disagree Agree 9, 27% 5, 15% Not Sure Disagree 6, 18% 22, 67% No Response Q4 Reading: I receive feedback on implementation of the Iowa Core. Agree No Response Q5 Reading: I receive regular feedback on my instruction. 0, 0% 1, 3% 0, 0% 3, 9% Not Sure 9, 27% Disagree Not Sure Agree 21, 64% 17, 52% No Response Q6 Reading: I include the standards in my lesson plans. No Response Q6 Math: I include the standards in my lesson plans. Not Sure 10, 36% Disagree 17, 52% Agree 0, 0% 0, 0% 0, 0% 0, 0% 16, 48% Disagree 15, 45% Agree No Response 18, 64% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 93 Q7 Reading: I received enough initial training to implement the district curriculum and materials. 0, 0% 0, 0% Q7 Math: I received enough initial training to implement the district curriculum and materials. 0, 0% 0, 0% Not Sure 14, 42% Disagree 19, 58% Not Sure 7, 25% Disagree Agree 21, 75% No Response Q8 Reading I receive on-going training regarding the Iowa Core on a regular basis. 3, 9% 0, 0% No Response Q8 Math: I receive on-going training regarding the Iowa Core on a regular basis. 0, 0% 5, 15% Not Sure 3, 11% 5, 18% Disagree No Response Q9 Reading: I engage in collaborative instructional planning at least once a week. 0, 0% 2, 6% 5, 15% Not Sure Disagree Agree 25, 76% Agree 20, 71% No Response Q9 Math: I engage in collaborative instructional planning at least once a week. 0, 0% 2, 7% 3, 11% Not Sure Disagree 26, 79% Agree Agree No Response Not Sure Disagree 23, 82% Agree No Response 94 Q10 Reading: I engage in professional development which deepens my understanding of the Iowa Core, Characteristics of Effective Instruction, and district curriculum materials. 2, 6% Q10 Math: I engage in professional development which deepens my understanding of the Iowa Core, Characteristics of Effective Instruction, and district curriculum materials. 0, 0% 3, 11% 3, 9% 21, 64% 7, 21% Not Sure Not Sure 7, 25% Disagree Agree No Response Q11 Reading: I understand how to administer and use the information from the universal screeners. 18, 64% Disagree Agree No Response Q11 Math: I understand how to administer and use the information from the universal screeners. 0, 0% 6, 18% 4, 12% 7, 21% 5, 18% Not Sure Disagree 12, 43% 11, 39% No Response Q12 Reading: I use formative assessments which are aligned to Iowa Core. Agree No Response Q12 Math: I use formative assessments which are aligned to Iowa Core. 0, 0% 0, 0% 9, 27% 21, 64% Disagree Agree 16, 49% Not Sure 3, 9% Not Sure 6, 21% Disagree Agree No Response 19, 68% 3, 11% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 95 Q13 Reading: I use valid progress monitoring assessments (given weekly for interventions) with rate of growth checks. 1, 3% 3, 9% Q13 Math: I use valid progress monitoring assessments (given weekly for interventions) with rate of growth checks. 0, 0% 2, 7% Not Sure 9, 27% 20, 61% Not Sure Disagree Agree 8, 29% Agree 18, 64% No Response Q14 Math: My team meets weekly with UNI coach to examine data or instructionally plan. Disagree No Response This space left intentionally blank. 1, 4% 2, 7% 4, 14% Not Sure Disagree Agree 21, 75% No Response Q15 Reading: I meet with my data team or PLC at least 1 time a week in both reading and math. (if you meet twice a week on one subjec t and then meet twice during the following week on the other… Q15 Math: I meet with my data team or PLC at least 1 time a week in both reading and math. (if you meet twice a week on one subject and then meet twice during the following week on the other subject, consider that… 0, 0% 3, 11% 1, 3% 4, 12% Not Sure 21, 64% 7, 21% 3, 11% Disagree Agree No Response Not Sure Disagree 22, 78% Agree No Response 96 Q16 Reading: 80-90% of my students are engaged 80-90% of the time. Q16 Math: 80-90% of my students are engaged 80-90% of the time. 0, 0% 0, 0% 5, 18% 7, 21% Not Sure Disagree Disagree 6, 18% 20, 61% Agree 16, 57% 7, 25% 0, 0% Q18 Climate & Culture: There is a set behavior plan/program for the building. 0, 0% 3, 11% Not Sure 5, 18% Disagree 10, 36% 15, 53% Agree No Response Q20 Climate & Culture: The behavior plan is implemented with fidelity. 1, 4% 0, 0% 18, 64% 18, 64% 5, 18% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response Q21 Climate & Culture: I have evidence which indicates regular parent involvement. (telephone logs, emails, newsletters, etc) . 0, 0% 9, 32% Agree No Response No Response Q17 Climate & Culture: I am aware of one-on-one adult/student mentors. Not Sure 1, 4% Not Sure Disagree 5, 18% Agree No Response 22, 78% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 97 APPENDIX B—Implementation Studies Small Group Instruction: Initial Study of Current Reality January & February, 2014 Represents evidence of planning documents and/or progress monitoring tools available, referred to, and utilized during observation. School Name: ______________________________________________Date:_________________ Total count [n] of (+) observed Total [n] Tchrs. Observed Total Tchrs. per Bldg. [x3] Percentage Evidenced per Bldg. Comments Evidence of Lesson Planning: • • Referenced throughout lesson Includes appropriate components Evidence of Progress Monitoring: • • • • Running Records Behavior Checklists Anecdotal Notes Conference Notes/Observations Building Trends: Lesson planning Building Trends: Progress monitoring District Trends: Lesson planning District Trends: Progress monitoring 98 Lesson Plans Date: Lesson Plan Critical Elements Teacher: Evidence No Evidence Date: Comment/consideration Learning goals are clearly stated Learning goal is connected to a Common Core Standard The purpose is clearly stated. Whole Group The whole group component includes specific details what will occur during the minilesson (Connection, teaching, active involvement of students, & link) Multiple resources across the week are identified to reach learning goal. The instructional moves are clearly stated. Small Group Small group guided reading lesson plans clearly define the reading skill or strategy emphasized in the text and the text level is stated. Monitoring and Assessment opportunities are clearly stated and defined. It is evident that teacher knows what he/she is looking for to show successful progression toward the learning goal. 99 The texts appear to match the instructional level. The key questions are written down. Independent Tasks Independent tasks are clearly stated and linked to the minilesson. Opportunities are embedded in the independent task for students to engage in real reading and writing. The purpose of the task is identified. (What is the learning purpose of the task? It is not enough just to name the task such a independent reading or word work) Sharing Students share out how they improved as a reader or applied strategies learned. Conferences Specific student names are stated on plans which indicate an opportunity for these students to have a conference with the teacher. 100 APPENDIX C—Curriculum and Iowa Core Alignment 101 102 103 5th Grade Math – Trimester 2 Teacher Content Background Preparation for Unit 4 What’s That Portion? Fractions and Percents 1 Teaching Student Centered Mathematics Vol. 2–Van de Walle/Lovin Chapters 5 , 6, and 7 Investigations in Number, Data, and Space -5th Grade - TERC Investigations and the Common Core State Standards – update to guide – (Investigation 4A) • Investigations: ο Math in This Unit – pg. 10 ο Assessment in This Unit pg 14 ο Teacher Notes: End of Unit Assessments About Teaching Fractions and Percents Together, p. 145, Visualizing Fractions and Percents, p. 147 Implementing Investigations: Unit 4 Benchmarks (Investigations) and Iowa Core Standards Benchmark 1 Use fraction-percent equivalents to solve problems about the percentage of a quantity Benchmark 2 Order fractions with like and unlike denominators Benchmark 3 Add fractions through reasoning about fraction equivalents and relationships Additional Goals: • Multiply a fraction by a fraction using a representation. • Multiply a mixed number and a whole number. • Divide a unit fraction by a whole number. • Divide a whole number by a unit fraction. Iowa Core: MP 1-Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them MP 2 Reason abstractly and quantitatively MP4 – Model with mathematics MP7 – Look for and make use of structure 5.NF.1 Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators 5.NF.2. Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole, including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction model or equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers 5.NF.4 Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication to multiply a fraction or whole number by a fraction 5.NF.4.a Interpret the product (a/s) x q as a parts of a partition of q into b equal parts; equivalently, as the result of a sequence of operations a x q / b. 4.b Find the area of a rectangle with fractional side lengths, and show that the area is the same as would be found by multiplying the side lengths. Multiply fractional side lengths to find areas of rectangles, and represent fractional products as rectangular areas. 5. NF.5 compare the size of a product to the size of one factor on the basis on the size of the other factor, without performing the indicated multiplication 5.NF.7 Apply and extend previous understanding of division to divide unit fractions by whole numbers and whole numbers by unit fractions – ( Iowa Core p. 39 for 7.NF.a.,b., and c. 104 APPENDIX D—Screener and Benchmark Assessments DRA2 Growth Analysis [Growth from May 2013 to January 2014] Cunningham 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Student Count No gain 10 15 13 13 8 Less than Expected 12 11 9 5 5 Expected 32 22 12 21 18 Accelerated 9 11 21 19 20 Grand Total 63 59 55 58 51 59 42 105 80 286 No gain 15.87% 25.42% 23.64% 22.41% 15.69% Less than Expected 19.05% 18.64% 16.36% 8.62% 9.80% Expected 50.79% 37.29% 21.82% 36.21% 35.29% Accelerated 14.29% 18.64% 38.18% 32.76% 39.22% Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 20.63% 14.69% 36.71% 27.97% 100.00% Total Cunningham 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th As Percentages Total Cunningham DRA2 Spring to MidYear Proficiency Comparison May 2013-January 2014 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4 23 59 43 15 18 45 44 27 31 26 32 26 32 15 13 44 38 6 48 Not Proficient Proficient 105 DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend Kindergarten DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 1st Grade DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 100% 80% Not Proficient Proficient 60% 40% Not Proficient 20% Proficient 0% K-2011 K-2012 K-2013 3rd Grade DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 2nd Grade DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Not Proficient Proficient 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 4th Grade DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 20% 0% Not Proficient Proficient Proficient 5th Grade DRA2 Spring Proficiency Trend 100% 40% Not Proficient 40% 20% Not Proficient Proficient 0% 106 3rd Grade Skills Iowa Teacher 1 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 17% 8% 8% 67% Social Studies Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 17% 58% 25% 0% Science Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 0% 42% 25% 33% Teacher 2 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 33% 4% 25% 38% Social Studies Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 70% 22% 9% 0% Science Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 55% 18% 5% 23% Teacher 3 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Social Studies Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 59% 27% 9% 5% Science Gr 3 Fall Benchmark 43% 57% 0% 0% 107 4th Grade Skills Iowa Teacher 4 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 48% 14% 5% 33% Social Studies Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 48% 24% 14% 14% Science Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 48% 24% 14% 14% Teacher 5 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 29% 21% 4% 46% Social Studies Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 42% 13% 29% 17% Science Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 48% 13% 22% 17% Teacher 6 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 57% 29% 14% 0% Social Studies Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 57% 14% 14% 14% Science Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 71% 14% 14% 0% Teacher 7 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 27% 0% 18% 55% Social Studies Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 27% 36% 9% 27% Science Gr 4 Fall Benchmark 18% 45% 18% 18% 108 5th Grade Skills Iowa Teacher 8 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 4% 32% 16% 48% Social Studies Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 14% 23% 50% 14% Science Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 33% 33% 33% 0% Teacher 9 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 18% 39% 18% 25% Social Studies Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 11% 46% 39% 4% Science Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 29% 36% 25% 11% Teacher 10 Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 10% 21% 17% 52% Social Studies Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 15% 19% 50% 15% Science Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 50% 50% 0% 0% Special Education Resource Assessment Below Standards Approaching Standards Meets Standards Ex ceeds Standards Fiction Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 29% 57% 0% 14% Social Studies Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 17% 33% 50% 0% Science Gr 5 Fall Benchmark 20% 20% 40% 20% 109 APPENDIX E—Instruction Assistant/Para Professional Survey Perceptions of Cunningham’s Instruction Assistants (Para-professionals) —April 2014 Q1 Instructional Assistant: Instructional assistants are included in professional development. Q2 Instructional Assistant: I have clear directions how to support students. 1, 6% Not Sure 5, 31% 5, 32% 1, 6% Q3 Instructional Assistant: I recieve feedback on my interactions and assistance with students. Not Sure 3, 19% 7, 44% Agree 2, 12% No Response Q5 Instructional Assistant: I receive feedback on my interactions/assistance with students. 3, 19% 1, 6% 8, 50% No Response Q4 Instructional Assistant: I recieve feedback on my interactions and assistance with students. 3, 19% 6, 37% 4, 25% 3, 19% Not Sure 4, 25% 10, 63% Disagree Agree No Response Not Sure Disagree Disagree No Response Not Sure Q6 Instructional Assistant: I received enough initial training to do my job. 3, 19% Agree Disagree Agree Disagree 4, 25% 2, 12% Not Sure 4, 25% Disagree Agree 5, 31% 3, 19% 2, 12% 7, 44% Agree No Response 110 Q7 Instructional Assistant: I receive on-going training to meet the needs of my job. 4, 25% 4, 25% 4, 25% 4, 25% Not Sure Disagree Q8 Instructional Assistant: I engage in collaborative conversations with my assigned teacher (s) for at least 15 minutes once a week. 2, 3, 19% 12% Disagree Agree No Response Q9 Instructional Assistant: I administer assessments to students. Not Sure 6, 38% 5, 31% Agree No Response Q10 Instructional Assistant: If I answered "agree" to the previous question, I understand the directions and the purpose of the assessment. 2, 12% Not Sure 4, 25% 3, 19% Agree 7, 44% No Response Q13 Instructional Assistant: I am aware of one-on-one adult/student mentors. 4, 25% 3, 19% 2, 12% 7, 44% 4, 25% Disagree Agree No Response Q14 Instructional Assistant: If you marked "agree" I mentor at least one student as part of the initiative. 2, 12% 2, 13% Disagree No Response 1, 6% 8, 50% Not Sure Agree Not Sure 3, 19% Disagree 9, 56% 3, 19% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 111 Q15 Instructional Assistant: There is a set behavior plan/program for the building. 2, 12% 4, 25% 3, 19% Not Sure Disagree Agree 7, 44% No Response Q17 Instructional Assistant: I understand the behavior plan and feel confident to support the goals of the plan. 4, 25% 3, 19% 6, 37% 4, 25% 4, 25% 5, 31% Agree No Response Not Sure Disagree Agree 3, 19% No Response Q18 Instructional Assistant: I meet with administration or coach at least 1 time a month to discuss job responsibilities or engage in professional learning. Not Sure Disagree 3, 19% Q16 Instructional Assistant: The behavior plan is implemented with fidelity. 4, 25% 4, 25% 3, 19% 5, 31% Not Sure Disagree Agree No Response 112 APPENDIX F—Resource Alignment This chart shows the alignment between Cunningham’s SIG initiatives and federal, state, and local dollars. [NOTE: Figures shown here represent the approximate annual amount of resource alignment for Cunningham School for Excellence.] Funding Stream Type of Funding Total Amount Alignment with Transformation Model [Description of work to be funded] Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) At-risk Budget Federal $38,000 Facilitate and offer after school intensive tutoring through Focused Learning After School Hour (FLASH). Includes teacher, coordinator and clerical support General Fund Local $7,750 Purchase annual license to Skills Iowa assessment tool and professional development to support its use. Title VI Federal $3,000 Purchase assessments and provide PD on administration of assessments and interpretation/use of data Teacher Leadership State $12,000 Provide team leaders for 8 Professional Learning Communities during which teams work through the MTSS/RTI process Increasing Reading Achievement General Fund Local $3,000 Provide principal PD aligned to transformational reform, support purchase and implementation of iObservation to align instruction to effective teaching practice. Title I Federal $290,000 Increase supplemental support/materials for students with literacy needs and increase level of parent engagement in literacy instruction. (FTE 4.5) Title I Federal $70,000 Provide literacy coach (FTE 1.0) to collaborate with new instructional staff and support the work of the transformation goals. General Fund Local $7,000 Provide iObservation license for administration and teachers—a system for documenting data from and allowing dialogue about walkthroughs Title II, part A Federal $95,000 Supports smaller class size by providing 2 teachers Iowa Core State $3,000 Align curriculum with Iowa Core and Common Core State Standards. Support PD. 113 Early Literacy Funds State $9,000 Support/Supplement a two-week summer school literacy programming (teachers, transportation, and materials) and family literacy nights in June and July Increasing Math Achievement General Budget Local $3,000 Provide principal PD aligned to transformational reform, support purchase and implementation of iObservation to align instruction to effective teaching practice. Title 1 Federal $15,000 Increase supplemental instructional support in math in alignment with Transformation Goals. Increase level of parent engagement and family literacy. Iowa Core State $3,000 Align curriculum with Iowa Core and Common Core State Standards. Support PD. $7,000 Provide iObservation license for administration and teachers—a system for documenting data from and allowing dialogue about walkthroughs $5,000 Support from district math coach to design, implement and assessment math lesson as aligned to Iowa Core and district instructional model and materials General Fund General Budget Local Local Increase Positive Student Behaviors Support funding for Behavioral Intervention Specialist General Budget Local $20,000 At-risk Funds Federal $8,000 Provide continued professional development to ensure implementation of PBIS with consistency and fidelity. IDEA Federal $5,000 Support from district behavior supports coordinator with PBIS professional development. Enhancing Student Learning For All Learners ELL Funds State $29,000 Gifted/Talented State $33,660 Provides 0.3 FTE teacher and 0.2 FTE native language interpreters. Purchase expanded materials for ELL teachers to allow for differentiation in ELL and non-ELL classrooms. Staff support (0.5 FTE) for enrichment of literacy and math IDEA Federal $2,500 Purchase expanded materials for ELP teachers to allow for differentiation in ELP and regular classrooms. In addition to staff hired through IDEA, we are providing additional support to strengthen expectations for special education students/programming and ensure instruction aligns with goals of this model. Enhance collaboration/ co-teaching. 114 McKinneyVento Homeless Grant Support academic and behavioral needs of homeless students Federal $1,500 Early Childhood Shared Vision State $73,000 Provide preschool programming for residents within Cunningham boundaries Head Start Federal $68,000 Provide preschool programming for low-income families within Cunningham boundaries Professional Development General Budget Local TBD Teacher Induction via Teacher Leadership & Compensation State $4,000 per new teacher Teacher Quality PD Budget State $24,000 Iowa Core State $9,500 Training and development in: • • • • • Reading model Math model PBIS Interactive technology Effective Instructional Strategies 115 APPENDIX G—Policy and Practice Modification The following charts reflect discussions around modifications to policies and practices that have been adjusted or are being considered for modification as we implemement SIG reform interventions. Policy Modifications for School, Students, Staff, Programs, and Services Policy Area Current Policy (number) Attendance (509.0) Suspension (504.4) Field Trips (604.3) Evaluation (Article XII) Students must attend 148 per year (37 each quarter). For major violations, disciplinary options are somewhat limited (including suspension) Was quite flexible and often results in lost learning time for field trips that are questionable Student growth data may be submitted by teacher as an artifact for evaluation Proposed Modification Action to Remedy Timeline - Review policy following protocol for revision - Work with parents to ensure they understand the critical nature of sending their children to school. - Enlist help of community agencies in enforcing attendance requirements. Explore addition - Included tier 2 and tier 3 behavior supports (i.e. check options for consequences, beyond in, check out, safe seats) to decrease the use of suspension suspension. and increase attendance Spring 2014 Must be linked to - District office provided professional development to educationally sound admin and teachers about learning alignment of field trips opportunities, and - District implemented an online implemented field trip approval system to consistently across the ensure oversight district September 2013 Increase the number of required days of attendance. Student growth data will be a data point considered in the evaluation process, although not the sole - Met with WEA to reach agreement on proposed changes to teacher contract. Fall 2013 June 2014 116 review. Teachers will be evaluated once every three years. Employee Hours (Article X) Employee Contract Days (Article X) Supplemental Pay (Article IV) Current work day for teachers is 7.5 hours. The normal work week is five consecutive work days. There are no opportunities to earn pay for performance. determining factor Teachers assigned to a PLAS school will be formally evaluated annually. Teacher work day will be up to 8.0 hours. - Met with WEA to reach agreement on proposed changes to teacher contract. Teachers assigned to - HR will work with Cunningham principal to Cunningham may be develop employment contracts required to participate that reflect the revised school in PD and parent year and workday. Staff will be involvement provided 4-6 weeks prior strategies on notice of added time beyond Saturdays as contract days/Saturdays. scheduled. - Establish system to administer flexible use of hours. All staff, including - A committee comprised of WEA, Cunningham staff, and certified, District administration will administrative and meet to set growth goals and clerical) will have success indicators and opportunities to earn measures performance pay Summer 2014 Fall 2014 August 2014 • Prorated for parttime pay) • Based on achievement goals Voluntary and Involuntary Transfers (Article XIV and XV) Transfer rights are limited to master contract. Teachers, upon - Met with WEA to reach agreement on proposed review of PLAS plan, changes to teacher contract. may choose to transfer to a position in another building for which they are qualified. Administrators will May 2014 117 have the right to determine that a teacher should be transferred to another building. Considerations will include past performance, academic preparation, and best fit based on the proposed PLA plan. Practice Modifications for School, Students, Staff, Programs and Services Policy Area Current Policy Proposed Modification Action to Remedy Timeline Student Contact Days Currently 175 Students will attend additional days of school HR dept proposes a calendar (based on recommendations from admin and staff). Send to board for approval May 2014 Master schedule Current schedule provides a 90minute reading block Ensure that every child who is behind grade level in reading gets a minimum of 120 minutes of instruction. Leadership team will review master schedule, explore feasibility of various changes, and initiate a new schedule. Summer 2014 After school tutoring (FLASH) Currently offered two nights week Tutoring offered three nights per week Establish schedule, transportation, budget August 2014 Student Led Conferences All conferences are parent led Modify current practice to include student led conferences. Cunningham leadership team will review research and make recommendation December 2014 118 Hiring Practices A hiring protocol is followed consistently across the district. Administrators at Cunningham will need more discretion in the hiring and assignment of staff, to meet the needs of the grant goals. HR Director will meet with new principal to complete needs assessment and establish guidelines. May 2014 Recruit and hire teachers with skills for Turnaround Schools. Opportunities for Professional Development Cunningham staff are offered the same number of PD opportunities as other non-PLA schools. Differentiated opportunities are limited. The proposed SIG plan provides additional professional development days. Director of Profession Development, Curriculum Directors and building leadership team will PD must be provided meet often to based on the needs of establish needs and individual, team and next steps for PD. building needs. Beginning May 2014 Ongoing during grant Monitoring and Coaching for Instructional improvement Staff receive moderate amounts of monitoring and coaching for improvement Significantly increased monitoring and coaching is needed to ensure implementation with fidelity of instructional strategies as specified in action steps. Monitor via iObservation data the amount and quality of feedback being given to staff. Hold leadership team accountable for ensuring adequate feedback is given. August 2014 Identification and support for Special Education, and Delivery is done through a pull out program and Delivery of instruction is done in a more inclusive manner. Materials Student services/support staff will review delivery program and Fall 2014 (ongoing) 119 ELL and Title 1 programming instruction is not coordinated with Core program. and instruction will coordinate with the Core program. redesign based on best practice. Parent Involvement Parent involvement is limited and not always well attended Increase frequency and variety of opportunities for parents to become involved in the learning of their children will be expanded to occur monthly. Plan one family event monthly with a defined “link to learning.” Increase communication to parents/community about the Transformation Model and how it impacts calendar & programs. Parent Communication 64 Cunningham students in grades K-5 (13.8 %) have at least one parent who is registered for Parent Portal access. (Average weekly login is 3.7%) Connect Ed (automated Increase information that is available on the parent portal for elementary parents; consider a communication campaign to increase parent awareness of Parent Portal and knowledge about how to use. Expand use of automated parent notification system Monthly, starting in August 2014 Review building parent involvement plan that welcomes and honors all parents and community. Provide professional development as needed to implement plan Establish committee (parents, curriculum staff, and building leadership) to review information on parent portal and make suggestions to technology dept. Fall 2014 Work with district leadership team to brainstorm additional uses for Connect Ed automated parent 120 Community – Based Services parent notification system) has been used at Cunningham 45 times thus far during the 2013-14 school year, averaging 5.6 uses per month. (Connect Ed) to communicate reminders, always in primary languages Agencies and organizations assist as needed. Participation is not as high as desired. Increase awareness and use of community based services notification system. Enhance school website - Establish plan for increasing awareness of service offerings. 2014-15 school year - Identify student needs and ensure they are met (Work with Success Link to establish a plan) 121 APPENDIX H—Cunningham Teacher Expectations Transformational Reform and Teacher Expectations—CUNNNINGHAM May 2014 A. As you know, Cunningham will implement a number of changes for our staff and our school. Among these changes are: 1. Additional contracts days (estimated at 6-8 additional contract days prior to August 14) 2. Of these additional contract days, 1 or 2 contract days (15-16 hours) will be used for professional development done on a flexible schedule throughout the school year (NOTE: Teachers will receive 6 weeks notice prior to a scheduled PD event outside of the regular contract day—i.e. after school/Saturdays.) 3. Additional daily contract hours (8 hour work day—may be only on M, T, W, Th) 4. An increased requirement to collaborate on the planning and delivery of effective instructional practices 5. An increased level of accountability and progress monitoring of implementation of school improvement efforts with student achievement efforts 6. An increased level of accountability and progress monitoring of the impact of school improvement efforts on accelerating student achievement 7. Monthly academic family involvement nights (not all teachers need to attend all events—this could be scheduled on a rotation) B. Given the increased focus on academic achievement, a Cunningham teacher must demonstrate the following: 1. Ability to accelerate academic performance 2. Commitment to doing whatever it takes to support student success 3. Belief that all students will learn rigorous academic content at high levels 4. Ability to plan (collaboratively and independently) and deliver powerful lessons that engage students at high levels 5. Passion for working with a diverse student population 6. Effective in using innovative technology 7. Effective classroom management 8. Ability to collaborate with students, families, colleagues and business partners to provide the most effective educational opportunities 9. Excellent record of attendance C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. With these expectations, the following will be required: Full implementation of the data team process at high levels of fidelity Demonstrated ability to build and maintain relationships with students, families and staff Required lesson plans turned in for review and feedback Commitment toward individual, team and building goal setting and monitoring progress toward meeting those goals Evidence of contributions toward the school improvement plan (monitored through building implementation studies) Willing participation in peer observations as professional development and evidence of reflective practice from those peer observations Following with fidelity the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 strategies as specified in PBIS Providing data/evidence as required for the monthly monitoring sessions led by the Iowa Department of Education Attendance at additional professional development sessions beyond the contract time (as scheduled by the building principal) I understand these qualifications are expectations for all staff members at Cunningham [Lowell]. I further I will be held responsible for these expectations at all times. Staff Signature___________________________________________ Date _______________ 122 APPENDIX I—Incentive Pay Plan SAMPLE SIG Incentive Pay Plan Below are the student achievement incentive goals for _______. These goals specify the amount of student growth that will be rewarded through School Improvement Grant (SIG) dollars. This plan reflects the newest research on incentivizing student achievement in that it: a) offers multiple opportunities to reward growth, b) includes more than one standardized assessment, and c) includes a combination of status goals and growth goals. To ensure the integrity of this incentive plan, the district, in cooperation with building leadership, will develop test security measures that protect the integrity of the measurement. Those security measures will be published to the staff and monitored by building and district leadership. Any staff members who participate in the administration of any standardized tests, including but not limited to Iowa Assessments, Skills Iowa, and DRA2, must agree to follow the test administration guidance set by the Iowa Department of Education (shown below). Test administration violations could invalidate the test data and jeopardize the building’s incentive pay plan. 123 INCENTIVE PAY GOALS Qualifying staff at _____________________ will receive: 2 day of per diem pay for meeting goal #1: On the Iowa Assessments, we will decrease the percent of FAY students in grades 3-5 who are not proficient on the reading comprehension test by 10%—from 51.22% not proficient in spring 2012 to 46.1% not proficient in spring 2013. 2 day of per diem pay for meeting goal #2: On the Iowa Assessments, we will decrease the percent of FAY students in grades 3-5 who are not proficient on the math test by 10%—from 40.24% not proficient in spring 2012 to 36.22% not proficient in spring 2013. ½ day of per diem pay for meeting goal #3: In grades 1-5, 55% of our students who were not proficient on the fall DRA2 will make accelerated growth on the mid-year DRA2, as determined by the district’s growth parameters. [Note: In the 2011-2012 school year, 50.8% of non-proficient students on the fall DRA2 made accelerated growth on the mid-year DRA2.] ½ day of per diem pay for meeting goal #4: In the 2012-2013 school year, 87% of students in grades K-5 will show expected or accelerated growth from fall to spring on the DRA2 test as determined by the district growth parameters. Kindergarten growth will be measured from midyear to spring, as they do not take the DRA2 assessment in the fall. [Note: In the 2011-2012 school year 84.3% of our th students in K-5 grade made at least expected growth on the DRA2 from fall to spring (midyear to spring for the kindergarten students).] ½ day of per diem pay for meeting goal #5: On the Skills Iowa Fiction test, the percent of proficient students in grades 3-5 will increase from 61% proficient on the beginning of year fiction Skills Iowa Assessment (given in Sept) to 70% proficient on the end of year test (given in March). [Note: On the 2011-2012 Fiction Skills Iowa tests, the students in grades 3-5 went from 46% of students proficient at the beginning of the year (Sept) to 50% of students proficient at the end of the year (March). This is a growth of 4 percentage points.] ½ day of per diem pay for meting goal #6: On the Skills Iowa non-fiction social studies test, the percent of proficient students in grades 3-5 will increase from 35% proficient on the beginning of year non-fiction social studies Skills Iowa Assessment (given in October) to 55% proficient on the end of year test (given in April). [Note: During the past two years, students in grades 3-5 have grown on average 17 percentage points from the beginning of the year to the end of the year on the Social Studies Skills Iowa Assessments.] ½ day of per diem pay for meeting goal #7: On the Skills Iowa non-fiction science test, the percent of proficient students in grades 3-5 will increase from 45% proficient on the beginning of year non-fiction science Skills Iowa Assessment (given in November) to 55% proficient on the end of year test (given in May). [Note: The past two years students in grades 3-5 have grown on average 9 percentage points from the beginning of the year to the end of the year on the Science Skills Iowa Assessments.] ½ day of per diem pay for meeting goal #8: On the Skills Iowa math test, the percent of proficient students in grades 3-5 will increase from 3% proficient on the beginning of year (given in Sept) to 45% proficient on the end of year test (given in May). [Note: The past two years students in grades 3-5 have grown an average of 33 percentage points from the beginning of the year to the end of the year on the Skills Iowa math assessment.] 124 APPENDIX J—Increased Learning Time Increased Learning Time as Designed for Cunningham's SIG Plan Increased Learning Time for Students Activity Details 7 additional student days 6.5 daily hours x 7 days FLASH (Focused Learning After School Hour) 20 weeks x M/T/Th x 1.5 hours (2:45-4:15) Summer School 10 days x 6.5 hours Additional 5 minutes on daily schedule 5 minutes * 187 days Additional Hours 45.5 90 65 16 216 Increased PD/Collaboration Time for Teachers Activity Details 36 weeks x .5 hours added time on contract day Wednesdays only (36 weeks x .5 hours) 1 additional teacher day (flexibly scheduled for PD/collaboration) 1 day x 8 hours Additional Hours 18 8 26 TOTAL INCREASED TIME FOR LEARNING @ CUNNINGHAM Currently seeking additional funding for 58 hours of student/teacher time (perhaps through TLC, Iowa Core, IDEA, TQ) Goal for Additional Hours for Cunningham’s Increased Learning Time 242 58 300 125
© Copyright 2024